Create Epistemology Document
Repository continuity composition
For repository-scoped work, compose maintain-repository-continuity in
Resume mode before selecting work. After an authorized repository change
passes domain validation, compose Refresh and Verify immediately before
presenting the pull request, and include the reconciled root CONTINUITY.md in
the same change. A policy-permitted no-change or exemption result must be
documented instead of fabricating an edit.
- Contribute: Knowledge sources, evidence labels, validation methods, uncertainty, and open questions
- Never claim: That unknown, inferred, or unavailable evidence is verified knowledge
Purpose
Create or update EPISTEMOLOGY.md in conformance with architecture-epistemology.
The document must answer:
How do we determine whether a claim is sufficiently supported, how certain we are, and how that knowledge may change?
Use this skill when
- the canonical document does not exist
- the existing document is incomplete or inconsistent
- upstream architecture changed materially
- the repository architecture system is being established or repaired
- a repeatable, validated authoring workflow is needed
Do not use this skill for
- treating authority as proof
- hiding disagreement
- using undefined confidence labels
- presenting decisions as facts
Required inputs
- governing specification and version
- required upstream architecture documents
- applicable policies and decisions
- existing repository evidence
- known conflicts, assumptions, and open questions
Missing evidence must be recorded rather than invented.
Workflow
- inventory existing evidence, provenance, confidence, and decision practices
- identify recurring knowledge failures and ambiguity
- define claim states and their meanings
- define source and evidence evaluation criteria
- define confidence and uncertainty language
- define conflict-resolution and canonicalization rules
- test the model against contradictory and incomplete evidence
- validate applicability to humans and AI systems
Output contract
Produce:
EPISTEMOLOGY.md
- governing specification identifier and version
- assumptions and unresolved questions
- validation results
- downstream review recommendations
Constraints
- Preserve canonical terminology.
- Separate evidence, inference, proposal, and decision.
- Do not invent organizational intent or authority.
- Do not silently resolve contradictions.
- Do not claim completion when required inputs are missing.
- Keep implementation detail outside the document unless the specification
explicitly requires it.
Validation
Use:
references/validation-checklist.md
and the acceptance criteria in:
architecture-epistemology
Completion criteria
1---2name: create-epistemology-document3description: Creates or updates EPISTEMOLOGY.md from repository evidence and architecture context. Use when a project needs to define, repair, or review how it acquires and validates knowledge.4license: MIT5---67# Create Epistemology Document89<!-- aether-continuity-disposition: reader-writer -->1011## Repository continuity composition1213For repository-scoped work, compose `maintain-repository-continuity` in14**Resume** mode before selecting work. After an authorized repository change15passes domain validation, compose **Refresh** and **Verify** immediately before16presenting the pull request, and include the reconciled root `CONTINUITY.md` in17the same change. A policy-permitted no-change or exemption result must be18documented instead of fabricating an edit.1920- **Contribute:** Knowledge sources, evidence labels, validation methods, uncertainty, and open questions21- **Never claim:** That unknown, inferred, or unavailable evidence is verified knowledge2223## Purpose2425Create or update `EPISTEMOLOGY.md` in conformance with `architecture-epistemology`.2627The document must answer:2829> How do we determine whether a claim is sufficiently supported, how certain we are, and how that knowledge may change?3031## Use this skill when3233- the canonical document does not exist34- the existing document is incomplete or inconsistent35- upstream architecture changed materially36- the repository architecture system is being established or repaired37- a repeatable, validated authoring workflow is needed3839## Do not use this skill for4041- treating authority as proof42- hiding disagreement43- using undefined confidence labels44- presenting decisions as facts4546## Required inputs4748- governing specification and version49- required upstream architecture documents50- applicable policies and decisions51- existing repository evidence52- known conflicts, assumptions, and open questions5354Missing evidence must be recorded rather than invented.5556## Workflow57581. inventory existing evidence, provenance, confidence, and decision practices592. identify recurring knowledge failures and ambiguity603. define claim states and their meanings614. define source and evidence evaluation criteria625. define confidence and uncertainty language636. define conflict-resolution and canonicalization rules647. test the model against contradictory and incomplete evidence658. validate applicability to humans and AI systems6667## Output contract6869Produce:7071- `EPISTEMOLOGY.md`72- governing specification identifier and version73- assumptions and unresolved questions74- validation results75- downstream review recommendations7677## Constraints7879- Preserve canonical terminology.80- Separate evidence, inference, proposal, and decision.81- Do not invent organizational intent or authority.82- Do not silently resolve contradictions.83- Do not claim completion when required inputs are missing.84- Keep implementation detail outside the document unless the specification85 explicitly requires it.8687## Validation8889Use:9091 references/validation-checklist.md9293and the acceptance criteria in:9495 architecture-epistemology9697## Completion criteria9899- [ ] The governing specification is identified.100- [ ] Required upstream evidence has been read.101- [ ] The document answers its primary question.102- [ ] Responsibilities and non-responsibilities are respected.103- [ ] Assumptions and unresolved questions are visible.104- [ ] Structural, semantic, relationship, and evidence checks pass.105- [ ] Downstream review needs are reported.