Speckledrattlesnakeinoculant470 /cross-validate
Format a physics or mathematics claim for cross-model validation.
Use this when Claude has produced a result you want to check against a second AI model (Gemini, ChatGPT, or a fresh Claude context). Different models fail in different ways on the same physics, so agreement between models is meaningful evidence; disagreement tells you exactly where to look harder.
Inspired by the "hallucination orthogonality" principle and council-mode verification in flonat/claude-research, and the physics-specific failure modes documented by Tim Andersen (How to use Claude to do physics).
Usage
/cross-validate "the residue of ξ(2s)E(z,s) at s=1/2 is π"
/cross-validate (no argument — validate the last substantial result)
Steps
Step 1 — State the claim precisely. Write the claim as a self-contained statement including:
- The exact formula or result
- All notation and conventions needed to read it (do not assume the other model shares your conventions)
- The domain of validity or the specific input values
Example:
Claim: For the completed Eisenstein series E*(z,s) = ξ(2s)E(z,s), where ξ(s) = π^{-s/2} Γ(s/2) ζ(s), the residue at s = 1/2 is 3/π. Check this using the functional equation E*(z,s) = E*(z,1-s) and the pole structure of ξ(s).
Step 2 — List the specific checkpoints. Identify what a second model should verify. Focus on the known Claude weak spots:
- Dimensional analysis: are all quantities dimensionally consistent?
- Sign conventions: which sign convention is being used and is it applied consistently?
- Formula provenance: is this formula standard? Does it appear (with the same normalisation) in a named reference?
- Special-case check: does the result reduce correctly at a known special value?
- Step that looks too easy: any step summarised as "one computes" or "it follows that" — ask the other model to expand it.
Step 3 — Output the validation prompt. Produce a prompt ready to paste into another model. Format:
I want to verify a specific mathematical claim. Please check it independently —
do not try to agree with me, just derive it yourself from scratch.
[Exact statement from Step 1]
Please check:
1. [Checkpoint from Step 2]
2. [Checkpoint from Step 2]
...
If you reach a different answer, say so and explain where the derivations diverge.
Step 4 — After the user returns with the second model's answer. Compare the two answers:
| Outcome | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| Both agree | High confidence — proceed |
| Disagree on a sign or factor | Check the normalisation convention; one model is using a different definition |
| Disagree on the method | Both might be right via different routes — or one is wrong; trace the discrepancy |
| Second model refuses or is vague | Try a fresh Claude session instead |
Report which specific step or factor differs and what the most likely source of the discrepancy is.
Free scriptable option
The Gemini CLI can be called from the terminal:
gemini -p "$(cat /tmp/validation_prompt.txt)"
This lets you run the second-model check from the same terminal without switching
context. The cross-validate skill can write the prompt to /tmp/validation_prompt.txt
automatically if you pass --write-prompt.