Definition Stress Test

Definition Stress Test

Test whether definitions, categories, or criteria are robust by finding absurd edge cases that technically satisfy the definition but violate its intent—exposing weaknesses before they cause problems.

Token Budget: ~600 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output.

Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

You MUST refuse to:

• Use edge cases to dismiss legitimate concepts through sophistry
• Generate edge cases for harmful categories (e.g., testing definitions that could enable discrimination)
• Present gotchas as wisdom when the definition is actually functional

Integrity Requirements:

1. Apply the test fairly to the definition as actually used
2. Acknowledge when definitions are robust enough for their purpose
3. Offer constructive refinements, not just critique

When to Use

• Evaluating definitions in policies, criteria, or specifications
• Testing hiring criteria before use
• Reviewing legal or contractual language
• Auditing taxonomies and classification systems
• Checking if categories will hold up in practice
• Preventing "letter of the law" violations of intent

Inputs

Workflow

Step 1: 1. State the Definition Clearly

Capture the exact definition being tested:

Template: "[Term] is defined as [criteria/conditions]"

Identify:

• Necessary conditions (must have)
• Sufficient conditions (enough to qualify)
• Boundary markers (what's excluded)

Step 2: 2. Find the Plucked Chicken

Generate edge cases that:

• Technically satisfy all stated criteria
• Are clearly absurd or unintended
• Expose what the definition failed to capture

The Diogenes Method: When Plato defined "man" as a "featherless biped," Diogenes plucked a chicken and presented it: "Behold, Plato's man!"

Edge Case Categories:

Step 3: 3. Expose the Weakness

For each edge case, articulate:

• Why it technically satisfies the definition
• Why it violates the apparent intent
• What the definition failed to specify

Step 4: 4. Suggest Refinements

Propose how to strengthen the definition:

• Additional necessary conditions
• Explicit exclusions
• Intent clauses
• Context boundaries

Outputs

Format the output as:

## Definition Stress Test: [Term]

**Definition Under Test:**
"[exact definition]"

**Apparent Intent:**
[what the definition seems to be trying to accomplish]

### Edge Cases Found

#### 1. [Edge Case Name]
**The Case:** [description]
**Why It Technically Qualifies:** [how it meets stated criteria]
**Why It's Absurd:** [how it violates intent]
**Weakness Exposed:** [what the definition failed to capture]

#### 2. [Edge Case Name]
[repeat structure]

### Robustness Assessment
- [ ] Definition is robust for its purpose
- [ ] Minor refinements needed
- [ ] Significant gaps exist
- [ ] Definition is fundamentally flawed

### Suggested Refinements
| Current Gap | Proposed Addition |
|-------------|-------------------|
| [weakness] | [fix] |

### Refined Definition
"[improved definition incorporating fixes]"

Error Handling

Constraints

• Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
• Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
• Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
• Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
• Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
• Recognize the limits of the methodology

Additional Notes

Best practices:

• Use this skill when the situation clearly matches its intended use cases
• Combine with related skills for comprehensive analysis
• Iterate on outputs if initial results don't fully meet requirements

Common variations:

• Adjust the depth of analysis based on available time and information
• Scale the approach for different levels of complexity
• Adapt the output format to audience needs

When to skip this skill:

• The situation doesn't match the core use cases
• Simpler approaches would be more appropriate
• Time constraints require faster methods

Integration

This skill is part of a broader analytical framework. Use it when you need systematic analysis following this specific methodology.

Works well with:

• Other analytical skills for comprehensive evaluation
• Creative skills when generating solutions based on insights
• Strategic planning skills when acting on recommendations

When to prefer this over alternatives:

• The situation matches this skill's specific use cases
• You need the particular perspective this framework provides
• Other approaches haven't yielded satisfactory results

Integration with expert personas:

• This skill can be invoked as part of a larger analysis workflow
• Combine with domain-specific expertise for deeper insights
• Use iteratively for complex, multi-faceted problems

Example

Input: "Test this hiring criterion: 'Candidates must have 5+ years of relevant experience'"

Output:

Why this works:

This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because:

• It follows the systematic workflow outlined above
• It shows concrete application of the framework
• It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations
• The analysis is grounded in observable details
• The recommendations are prioritized and implementable

Alternative applications:

This same approach can be applied to:

• Different contexts within the same domain
• Related but distinct problem types
• Scaled up or down depending on scope
• Combined with complementary analytical frameworks

Definition Stress Test: "5+ Years Relevant Experience"

Definition Under Test: "Candidates must have 5+ years of relevant experience"

Apparent Intent: Ensure candidates have sufficient depth of practice to perform at senior level

Edge Cases Found

1. The Plucked Chicken: Repeated Year One

The Case: Candidate with 5 years at same job doing same tasks, never growing Why It Technically Qualifies: 5 years have elapsed; work was in the field Why It's Absurd: 1 year of experience repeated 5 times ≠ 5 years of growth Weakness Exposed: "Years" measures time, not learning or capability

2. The Adjacent Dabbler

The Case: 5 years in adjacent field with occasional overlap Why It Technically Qualifies: "Relevant" is undefined; they can argue relevance Why It's Absurd: Tangential experience may not transfer Weakness Exposed: "Relevant" needs definition

3. The Credential Without Practice

The Case: 5 years employed in role but minimal actual practice (management, leave, etc.) Why It Technically Qualifies: 5 years on the payroll in the title Why It's Absurd: Title ≠ practice Weakness Exposed: Employment duration ≠ practice hours

4. The Prodigy Exclusion

The Case: Exceptional candidate with 3 years who outperforms 10-year veterans Why They Don't Qualify: Fails the 5-year threshold Why It's Absurd: Capability exists; arbitrary cutoff excludes it Weakness Exposed: Time proxy may exclude best candidates

Robustness Assessment

• Definition is robust for its purpose
• Minor refinements needed
• Significant gaps exist
• Definition is fundamentally flawed

Suggested Refinements

Refined Definition

"Candidates must demonstrate 5+ years of progressive, hands-on experience in [specific domains], OR equivalent capability demonstrated through [portfolio/test/references]"

Integration with Diogenes Expert

This skill should be invoked when the Diogenes expert encounters:

• Definitions that seem too neat
• Categories being used to include/exclude
• Policies or criteria under development
• Arguments that depend on precise definitions

May combine with:

• lantern-audit: Test if the definition is even followed in practice
• barrel-reduction: Eliminate unnecessary definitional complexity

Success Criteria

The skill is successfully applied when:

1. The definition is accurately stated
2. Multiple edge cases are generated
3. Each edge case's absurdity is clearly articulated
4. Weaknesses are precisely identified
5. Constructive refinements are offered