World-First
An invention is a measured delta past a confirmed limit, proven novel against
a searched corpus, and reproducible by someone who is not you. Everything in
this skill exists to make each of those four clauses true before the word
"first" is used. The failure mode this skill prevents is the confident-but-wrong
"first-ever!" that dies in review — you would rather be slow-and-true than
fast-and-impressive.
This skill is the operational packaging of the invention pipeline. It composes
with scientific-method's invent.md (the falsification→invention engine,
provenance protocol, certification ladder, claim charts) — read that reference
for the deep machinery. What this skill adds is the entry discipline (a
confirmed limit, never a hunch), the removed-constraint test (the single
strongest generator of a real systems first), the dogma-mining move for
finding unclaimed territory, and a candidate-first template you fill in.
Before writing any code against an API, kernel contract, or FFI boundary,
invoke read-the-damn-docs. Inventions die on stale-memory API guesses more
than on bad ideas — a wrong launch contract produces garbage output that looks
like a failed invention when it was a failed lookup. Ground the mechanism in
what the docs/types/source actually say for the version in play, then cite it.
The gate that comes first: a CONFIRMED limit
Do not start an invention campaign from "wouldn't it be cool if." Start from a
measured wall — a number you have confirmed is real and that the current
approach cannot cross. No confirmed limit → no campaign. The reason is
Bayesian: without a measured limit you cannot tell a real invention from a
mechanism that "wins" only because the baseline was never tuned. The limit is
also your acceptance bar — pre-register the quantified effect, the named
baseline, and the scope before you build.
If you cannot yet name the wall, that is the task: measure it. Proving a target
impossible (the impossibility toolkit in invent.md §5) is a first-class
result worth more than a forged pass — an oracle-ceiling or conservation bound
that rules out the whole class is itself a defensible finding.
The pipeline (seven steps)
Frame — write the acceptance criteria as a falsifiable number: mechanism M achieves effect E vs tuned baseline B on scope S. Measure B first, at its
best configuration (not defaults — beating a strawman is the #1 invalid
win). This is the candidate-first template's top rows; open it now:
references/candidate-first-template.md.
Ideate with TRIZ + quotas — a technical contradiction ("lossless AND
fewer bytes", "concurrency AND low latency") is the raw material of a real
invention. Turn it into inventive moves with the contradiction matrix and the
four separation principles. Set a breadth quota and force distinct lenses —
identical lenses collapse onto one candidate. Cheat sheet:
references/triz-cheat.md.
Run the removed-constraint test — the highest-yield generator for a
systems first. Name the incumbent's mandatory barrier (a lock, the
GIL-serialized scheduler step, symmetric-TP, a global sync). Build the
structure that barrier forbids. Then prove your substrate removes exactly
that constraint — if a lock/GIL-bound engine could express the same
mechanism, it is not your first. Full procedure + the dogma-mining move (mine
incumbent issues/PRs/won't-fix/roadmap for admitted walls):
references/removed-constraint-test.md.
Refute, then build — spawn a fresh-context refuter per surviving idea
(scientific-method:refuter), default-to-refuted when uncertain. The author
of an idea must never referee it — you see what you meant, not what you
built. Only survivors get built. Then measure vs the tuned baseline and
ablate: remove each element and see which one carries the win. An
invention whose effect vanishes when one incidental detail is removed is
that detail, renamed.
Provenance-search every surviving mechanism — no unsearched mechanism is
ever called new. Decompose the claim into elements E1..En; run ≥3 query
families (synonyms, domain jargon, abbreviations); log venue/date/query/hits.
Name the canonical incumbent even when you re-derived it, and scope your
claim to the measured delta against it — not against a strawman. Verdict
grammar is fixed: "closest found X, differs in Y; no anticipating reference
in the searched corpus (venues + dates; gaps: Z)." Never an absolute newness
claim. The TransKV lesson: the design space being already occupied does
not kill you — the specific mechanization can still be novel — but it does
cap what you may claim. Deep protocol: invent.md §2.
Certify on the ladder — asserted → available (artifact + exact repro
recipe) → functional (independently runs) → reproduced (independent re-run
matches within pre-committed tolerance) → certified (independent setup +
full disclosure + provenance + adversarial review). A witness is an
artifact, not a sentence — the independent re-run's harness and output must
exist on disk and be re-runnable. A rung claim whose witness is only prose is
fabricated verification: it invalidates the whole claim, not just the rung.
Your own re-run never grants reproduced. Ladder detail: invent.md §6.
Kill the failure modes early — run the checklist below before the word
"first" leaves the building. Better to kill a bad invention at step 2 than
defend it at step 6.
Failure-mode checklist (kills a bad "first" early)
Score each. Any yes → stop and fix before claiming anything.
- Overclaim — is the claim an unscoped superlative ("fastest", "first-ever")
where the evidence supports only "matches canonical on A/B, improves C by N% on
this scope"? Scope to the measured delta.
- Reinventing prior art — did you provenance-search before claiming, or
after falling in love with it? Unsearched = not new, full stop.
- Non-problem — is the confirmed limit a wall anyone actually hits, or a
microbenchmark artifact? Name who is blocked by it.
- Novel-but-perf-neutral — does the mechanism move a number that matters?
A genuinely novel structure that is measurement-neutral on the real workload is
a curiosity, not an invention. (Our own fused-KV+MTP was novel and
perf-neutral single-GPU — honest kill.)
- Premature-first — did a fresh-context refuter try to break it before you
believed it? No refute pass → it is an unverified hypothesis, not a finding.
- Strawman baseline — is B the incumbent's best config, or its defaults?
- Verifier grants the win — does the test harness secretly hand the
mechanism something a real deployment won't (a shared counter as a coordination
channel, a fixed envelope the win rides on)? Re-run at a matched envelope and
break the affordance. (
invent.md §3.)
Fan-out shape (parallelism the campaign wants)
Invention is a fan-out problem — independent perspectives beat one context
iterating on itself. The default shape:
- Ideation fan-out — N agents, one distinct TRIZ lens or removed-constraint
angle each, blind to each other (forced diversity). Merge, dedup.
- Refute gate — one fresh
scientific-method:refuter per surviving
candidate, in parallel. Default-to-refuted. Survivors only.
- Council for judgment calls — when the call is interpretive ("is this
mechanism actually distinct from PagedAttention?"), spawn 3–5
scientific-method:council-member seats on different models, blind, each
with its own read-only probes. Councils settle judgment, not empirics —
empirical questions go to experiments.
- Peer-review before any external "first" claim — after a finding survives
refute and before it is built-on, merged, published, or sent out, run a
peer-review round: 3–5
scientific-method:peer-reviewer seats, one lens each
(soundness, prior-art/provenance, reproducibility, significance, fatal-flaw),
then one scientific-method:meta-reviewer to close. Weigh evidence, don't
count votes — one failed reproduction outweighs three approving skims.
Peer-review and provenance are the two gates that stand between a real first and
a retracted one. Do not skip them because the result feels obviously novel — the
obvious-novelty feeling is exactly when overclaim ships.
The one-sentence version
Measure the wall, name the barrier the incumbent cannot remove, build what the
barrier forbade, let a stranger try to break it, search the world for who did it
first, and only then — scoped to the number you actually moved — say "first".
1---2name: world-first3description: Use when the goal is to produce and defensibly claim a genuine world-first, invention, novel algorithm/protocol/kernel/mechanism, or "nobody has done this" capability — and to prove the claim rather than assert it. Triggers on intent like "invent", "world-first", "first-ever", "beat the incumbent with something new", "break all dogma", "is this novel?", "prove this is new", or any push to build a mechanism a competitor structurally cannot. Also use to audit an in-flight "first" claim for overclaim before it ships, is committed, benchmarked-for-publication, or sent externally. This is the packaging of the INVENTION PLAYBOOK: confirmed-limit entry → TRIZ ideation → the removed-constraint test → refute-then-build vs a tuned baseline → provenance search → certify → kill failure modes. Reach for it by default on invention and novelty-claim work; skip only for routine feature work with no novelty claim attached.4---56# World-First78An invention is a **measured delta past a confirmed limit, proven novel against9a searched corpus, and reproducible by someone who is not you.** Everything in10this skill exists to make each of those four clauses true *before* the word11"first" is used. The failure mode this skill prevents is the confident-but-wrong12"first-ever!" that dies in review — you would rather be slow-and-true than13fast-and-impressive.1415This skill is the operational packaging of the invention pipeline. It **composes16with `scientific-method`'s `invent.md`** (the falsification→invention engine,17provenance protocol, certification ladder, claim charts) — read that reference18for the deep machinery. What this skill adds is the *entry discipline* (a19confirmed limit, never a hunch), the **removed-constraint test** (the single20strongest generator of a real systems first), the **dogma-mining** move for21finding unclaimed territory, and a **candidate-first template** you fill in.2223**Before writing any code against an API, kernel contract, or FFI boundary,24invoke `read-the-damn-docs`.** Inventions die on stale-memory API guesses more25than on bad ideas — a wrong launch contract produces garbage output that looks26like a failed invention when it was a failed lookup. Ground the mechanism in27what the docs/types/source actually say for the version in play, then cite it.2829## The gate that comes first: a CONFIRMED limit3031Do not start an invention campaign from "wouldn't it be cool if." Start from a32**measured wall** — a number you have confirmed is real and that the current33approach cannot cross. No confirmed limit → no campaign. The reason is34Bayesian: without a measured limit you cannot tell a real invention from a35mechanism that "wins" only because the baseline was never tuned. The limit is36also your acceptance bar — pre-register the quantified effect, the named37baseline, and the scope *before* you build.3839If you cannot yet name the wall, that is the task: measure it. Proving a target40**impossible** (the impossibility toolkit in `invent.md` §5) is a first-class41result worth more than a forged pass — an oracle-ceiling or conservation bound42that rules out the whole class is itself a defensible finding.4344## The pipeline (seven steps)45461. **Frame** — write the acceptance criteria as a falsifiable number: `mechanism47 M achieves effect E vs tuned baseline B on scope S`. Measure B first, at its48 *best* configuration (not defaults — beating a strawman is the #1 invalid49 win). This is the candidate-first template's top rows; open it now:50 `references/candidate-first-template.md`.51522. **Ideate with TRIZ + quotas** — a technical contradiction ("lossless AND53 fewer bytes", "concurrency AND low latency") is the raw material of a real54 invention. Turn it into inventive moves with the contradiction matrix and the55 four separation principles. Set a breadth quota and force distinct lenses —56 identical lenses collapse onto one candidate. Cheat sheet:57 `references/triz-cheat.md`.58593. **Run the removed-constraint test** — the highest-yield generator for a60 systems first. Name the incumbent's *mandatory* barrier (a lock, the61 GIL-serialized scheduler step, symmetric-TP, a global sync). Build the62 structure that barrier forbids. Then prove your substrate removes *exactly63 that constraint* — if a lock/GIL-bound engine could express the same64 mechanism, it is not your first. Full procedure + the dogma-mining move (mine65 incumbent issues/PRs/won't-fix/roadmap for admitted walls):66 `references/removed-constraint-test.md`.67684. **Refute, then build** — spawn a **fresh-context refuter** per surviving idea69 (`scientific-method:refuter`), default-to-refuted when uncertain. The author70 of an idea must never referee it — you see what you meant, not what you71 built. Only survivors get built. Then measure vs the tuned baseline and72 **ablate**: remove each element and see which one carries the win. An73 invention whose effect vanishes when one incidental detail is removed *is*74 that detail, renamed.75765. **Provenance-search every surviving mechanism** — no unsearched mechanism is77 ever called new. Decompose the claim into elements E1..En; run ≥3 query78 families (synonyms, domain jargon, abbreviations); log venue/date/query/hits.79 Name the **canonical incumbent** even when you re-derived it, and scope your80 claim to the *measured delta* against it — not against a strawman. Verdict81 grammar is fixed: *"closest found X, differs in Y; no anticipating reference82 in the searched corpus (venues + dates; gaps: Z)."* Never an absolute newness83 claim. The **TransKV lesson**: the design space being already occupied does84 not kill you — the *specific mechanization* can still be novel — but it does85 cap what you may claim. Deep protocol: `invent.md` §2.86876. **Certify on the ladder** — `asserted` → `available` (artifact + exact repro88 recipe) → `functional` (independently runs) → `reproduced` (independent re-run89 matches within pre-committed tolerance) → `certified` (independent setup +90 full disclosure + provenance + adversarial review). **A witness is an91 artifact, not a sentence** — the independent re-run's harness and output must92 exist on disk and be re-runnable. A rung claim whose witness is only prose is93 fabricated verification: it invalidates the whole claim, not just the rung.94 Your own re-run never grants `reproduced`. Ladder detail: `invent.md` §6.95967. **Kill the failure modes early** — run the checklist below before the word97 "first" leaves the building. Better to kill a bad invention at step 2 than98 defend it at step 6.99100## Failure-mode checklist (kills a bad "first" early)101102Score each. Any yes → stop and fix before claiming anything.103104- **Overclaim** — is the claim an unscoped superlative ("fastest", "first-ever")105 where the evidence supports only "matches canonical on A/B, improves C by N% on106 this scope"? Scope to the measured delta.107- **Reinventing prior art** — did you provenance-search *before* claiming, or108 after falling in love with it? Unsearched = not new, full stop.109- **Non-problem** — is the confirmed limit a wall anyone actually hits, or a110 microbenchmark artifact? Name who is blocked by it.111- **Novel-but-perf-neutral** — does the mechanism *move a number that matters*?112 A genuinely novel structure that is measurement-neutral on the real workload is113 a curiosity, not an invention. (Our own fused-KV+MTP was novel and114 perf-neutral single-GPU — honest kill.)115- **Premature-first** — did a fresh-context refuter try to break it before you116 believed it? No refute pass → it is an unverified hypothesis, not a finding.117- **Strawman baseline** — is B the incumbent's *best* config, or its defaults?118- **Verifier grants the win** — does the test harness secretly hand the119 mechanism something a real deployment won't (a shared counter as a coordination120 channel, a fixed envelope the win rides on)? Re-run at a matched envelope and121 break the affordance. (`invent.md` §3.)122123## Fan-out shape (parallelism the campaign wants)124125Invention is a fan-out problem — independent perspectives beat one context126iterating on itself. The default shape:127128- **Ideation fan-out** — N agents, one distinct TRIZ lens or removed-constraint129 angle each, blind to each other (forced diversity). Merge, dedup.130- **Refute gate** — one fresh `scientific-method:refuter` per surviving131 candidate, in parallel. Default-to-refuted. Survivors only.132- **Council for judgment calls** — when the call is interpretive ("is this133 mechanism actually distinct from PagedAttention?"), spawn 3–5134 `scientific-method:council-member` seats on *different models*, blind, each135 with its own read-only probes. Councils settle judgment, not empirics —136 empirical questions go to experiments.137- **Peer-review before any external "first" claim** — after a finding survives138 refute and before it is built-on, merged, published, or sent out, run a139 peer-review round: 3–5 `scientific-method:peer-reviewer` seats, one lens each140 (soundness, prior-art/provenance, reproducibility, significance, fatal-flaw),141 then one `scientific-method:meta-reviewer` to close. Weigh evidence, don't142 count votes — one failed reproduction outweighs three approving skims.143144Peer-review and provenance are the two gates that stand between a real first and145a retracted one. Do not skip them because the result feels obviously novel — the146obvious-novelty feeling is exactly when overclaim ships.147148## The one-sentence version149150Measure the wall, name the barrier the incumbent cannot remove, build what the151barrier forbade, let a stranger try to break it, search the world for who did it152first, and only then — scoped to the number you actually moved — say "first".