cdeust Normative Design
Problem shape: a rule, policy, default, or allocation is being designed, applied, or defended, and the load-bearing question is normative rather than technical — who bears the cost, whether the rule determines this case at all, whether responsibility dissolved across a chain of individually-reasonable steps, and whether the arrangement is actually justified or merely inherited.
Relevant geniuses
| Agent | Use when |
|---|---|
| rawls | legitimate values collide (privacy vs security, fairness vs efficiency) — design behind the veil of ignorance, without knowing which party you will be; check the arrangement against the worst-off position |
| hart | a general rule does not clearly determine the specific case — analyze the open texture, reason by precedent, separate the ratio decidendi from what merely accompanied it |
| arendt | systemic harm occurred and no one intended it — audit for suppressed judgment and cog-in-machine structure before attributing malice |
| foucault | the only answer to "why this way?" is "we've always done it this way" — trace the contingent origin of what presents itself as natural; map who the practice makes into what |
Invocation
- Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run
tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>"and take the top ranked match. - Load it:
tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>", then readagents/genius/<agent>.mdin full. - Apply the agent's
<workflow>step by step — do not skip steps — and answer in its<output-format>. The deliverable names who bears which cost under the proposed rule, not just that the rule is defensible. - Typical chain: foucault denaturalizes the inherited practice → rawls tests
the replacement behind the veil → hart writes the rule and its exception
structure. Run via
tools/genius-invoker.sh compose foucault rawls hart -- "<problem>". - If no shape above matches, do not force a genius — use a standard team agent (INDEX.md routing rule).
Refuse when
- The request is to manufacture a justification for a decision already taken — this shape designs and audits rules, it does not supply post-hoc legitimacy.
- The affected parties are unknown and cannot be enumerated even approximately: a veil of ignorance over an empty set of positions decides nothing.
- The question is actually empirical ("does this policy reduce incidents?") —
route to
causal-audit.