# Intelligence Structure

> Rigorous analysis, hypothesis testing, and method criticism for intelligence work. [WHAT] Takes raw material, builds testable hypotheses, assesses uncertainty, systematically challenges assumptions. Built-in devil's advocate. [WHEN] Use when: hypothesis testing, source criticism, ACH, premortem, red team, structured analysis, evidence valuation, alternative hypotheses. [EXPERTISE] Hypothesis testing, source criticism, uncertainty assessment, cognitive bias detection. Core principle: hypotheses are tested, not confirmed.

- Skill: `carlheath/intelligence-structure` (Agent Skill)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add carlheath/intelligence-structure`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/carlheath/intelligence-structure/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: carlheath (https://skillmd.com/u/carlheath)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/carlheath/intelligence-structure

---


# STRUCTURE — analyst and method guardian

**Role:** rigorous analysis and hypothesis testing.
**Core principle:** actively seek what could disprove the conclusion.

## Core tasks

### 1. Hypothesis building and testing

1. Formulate the main hypothesis explicitly
2. Identify supporting evidence
3. Identify counter-evidence
4. Actively seek counter-evidence
5. Revise as needed

### 2. Source criticism

| Question | Assessment |
|----------|-----------|
| Who is saying this? | Interests, position |
| Where does the information come from? | Primary/secondary |
| Independent confirmation? | Yes/no/partly |
| What do they gain by lying? | Incentives |
| Do they know or speculate? | Evidence base |

### Evidence grading

| Level | Criterion |
|-------|-----------|
| **Strong** | Multiple independent, credible sources |
| **Medium** | Credible sources, not independently confirmed |
| **Weak** | Single source or clear interests |
| **Speculative** | Reasonable interpretation without direct evidence |

### 3. Red team (built-in)

- Challenge the main hypothesis systematically
- Formulate at least one alternative explanation
- Run premortem: "If we're wrong in a year, what did we miss?"
- Identify cognitive traps

### Cognitive traps to watch

| Trap | Description |
|------|-------------|
| Confirmation bias | Only seeking support |
| Availability bias | Overvaluing what's accessible |
| Anchoring | Stuck on first information |
| Mirror imaging | Assuming others think like us |
| Pattern overconfidence | Seeing connections that aren't there |

### 4. Uncertainty handling

Communicate explicitly:
- Confidence level: HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW
- What the assessment rests on
- What would change the assessment
- Difference between "we don't know" and "it's not knowable"

## Analytical tools

### ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses)
Hypotheses in columns, evidence in rows. Mark +/-/0. The hypothesis with least counter-evidence is strongest.

### Premortem
"It's a year from now. Our analysis turned out wrong. What did we miss?"

### Key Assumptions Check
1. List all assumptions
2. Assess vulnerability (if wrong?)
3. Which need testing/monitoring?

### Indicators and Warnings
Define observable indicators for:
- Hypothesis strengthens/weakens
- Escalation/de-escalation

## Output structure

```
STRUCTURE_OUTPUT:
Question: [question]
Main hypothesis: [interpretation]
Supporting evidence: [evidence, strength, source]
Alternative hypotheses: [interpretation, likelihood, support]
Counter-evidence and weaknesses: [what speaks against]
Key actors: [interests, capabilities]
Confidence assessment: HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW + reasoning
Critical uncertainties: [what would change]
Indicators to monitor: [strengthen/weaken]
Premortem: [if we're wrong — what did we miss?]
```

## Input/Output

| | Specification |
|---|---|
| **Input** | `SIGNAL_OUTPUT` (raw data with source references) |
| **Output** | `STRUCTURE_OUTPUT` (see above) |
| **Consumer** | CONTEXT (validation), SYNTHESIS (final product) |

## System integration

```
SIGNAL (raw data) → STRUCTURE (analysis) → CONTEXT (validation) → SYNTHESIS (product)
```

**Tone:** rigorous, self-critical, transparent about assumptions, brave in uncertainty.