epistemic-protocols

One goal is about to be handed to an autonomous run: the user takes a plan of units with checks, accepted gaps and held judgments, seeing what needed settling first and what returns at the end.

The user cannot yet see what a task needs decided, or what to keep or entrust: they can then see each decision, what rests on it, its cost if wrong, what settled it, and what stays open and with whom.

Work needs several lines of thinking and how they run is not obvious: the user can then say how they order, combine, stop and where results go, what they entrusted and kept, and own the method.

A result may not fit where it lands or may leave out what was asked: the user sees each misfit found, settled or withdrawn, and the fixes carried out and reread until nothing is open.

The user knows roughly what they want but not which decisions it turns on: they can then say 'this is my intent, aligned enough', each value on their own words, what they left open carried.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "audit plugin encapsulation", "check self-containment semantics", "find contributor-knowledge assumptions", or invokes /encapsulation. Reviews LLM-facing prose in this project's plugin SKILL.md files and plugin description metadata for Plugin Encapsulation compliance: prose that assumes contributor documentation knowledge or rephrases banned references to bypass deterministic checks. Project-local contributor tooling.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review. A fixed-lens PR review for this repository's formally-structured protocol changes: it pins a Category Theory / Type Theory / Operational Semantics lens panel over only the files changed in a PR, analyzes each lens in isolation, adversarially cross-verifies the findings, and posts the survivors as a single consolidated PR comment. Project-local contributor tooling.

Advisor-checked decision gates. Freezes a drafted option set, has an independent external advisor rule it genuine / collapsed / malformed, then verifies the cited grounds before it reaches the user.

Something in play — code, a document, a result — the user can't follow yet or nods along to unsure: they can then say their understanding serves their purpose, on a map checked with them.

A framework, analogy, or earlier design is carried to a case, or an abstraction tested: the user can say what carries each conclusion, what would break it, and if it holds, is blocked, or is open.

The idea field is empty, narrowed too early, or thin: the user can then see one map from their words and what they name — frames, branches, idea origins, the unexplored — and take it, nothing chosen.

Cases at hand seem to share what no one named yet, or what a name in use no longer says: the user can then name it, say which cases it takes in and leaves out, and recognize it as serving their goal.

A task rests on missing context or unchecked assumptions: the user can then recognize what was settled and from where, what rests on weak or unreached ground, and what only they decide.

Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the outcome eval", "paired bare vs protocol", "which decisions did the protocol surface", "count what the AI asked or presented", "does /inquire surface what the request left out", or wants to see, from transcripts, which decisions reached the user as a question or something to recognize instead of having to be written into the opening prompt. Project-local contributor tooling.

The user is about to commit to one of several directions they cannot judge from descriptions: they can then say what each means for their purpose, on what ground, and which one they take.

Something feels off and the user cannot name what is stuck: the user can then say what it is — a shown candidate, their own words, or none shown — having seen what each rests on and what rules it out.

Project guide direction line via three-horizon fusion. Invoke with /realign.

This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the eval", "test whether the protocol actually works at runtime", "check type realization", "measure protocol fulfillment", "run the type-realization suite", "does the gate actually stop", or wants runtime evidence that a protocol's formal transition contract is realized rather than an assessment of downstream artifact quality. Invoke explicitly with /realize and a skill argument.

The user vaguely recalls a past discussion, line of work, topic, or settled concept but cannot name it: find it in past records to recognize in a story, knowing it took place, not that it still holds.