CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

gap

Gap surfacing before decisions. Raises procedural, consideration, assumption, and alternative gaps as questions when gaps go unnoticed, producing an audited decision. Type: (GapUnnoticed, AI, SURFACE, Decision) → AuditedDecision. Alias: Syneidesis(συνείδησις).

48

Quality

35%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Critical

Do not install without reviewing

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./syneidesis/skills/gap/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Syneidesis Protocol

Surface unnoticed gaps at decision points through questions, enabling user to reach an audited decision. Type: (GapUnnoticed, AI, SURFACE, Decision) → AuditedDecision.

Definition

Syneidesis (συνείδησις): A dialogical act of surfacing potential gaps—procedural, consideration, assumption, or alternative—at decision points, transforming unnoticed gaps into questions the user can evaluate.

── FLOW ──
Syneidesis(D, Σ) → Scan(D) → G → Sel(G, D) → Gₛ → Q(Gₛ) → J → A(J, D, Σ) → Σ'

── MORPHISM ──
Decision
  → scan(decision, context)           -- identify gaps implicit in decision
  → select(gaps, stakes)              -- prioritize by stakes
  → surface(gap, as_question)         -- present gap as question
  → judge(user_response)              -- collect user judgment
  → AuditedDecision
requires: committed(Decision)           -- runtime checkpoint (Phase 0)
deficit:  GapUnnoticed                  -- activation precondition (Layer 1/2)
preserves: D                            -- read-only throughout; morphism acts on Σ only
invariant: Surfacing over Deciding

── TYPES ──
D      = Decision point ∈ Committed × Stakes × Context
Committed = committed(D) ≡ ∃ A : mutates_state(A) ∨ externally_visible(A) ∨ consumes_resource(A)
Stakes = {Low, Med, High}
G      = Gap ∈ {Procedural, Consideration, Assumption, Alternative} ∪ Emergent(G)
Scan   = Detection: D → Set(G)                      -- gap identification
Sel    = Selection: Set(G) × D → Gₛ                 -- prioritize by stakes
Gₛ     = Selected gaps (|Gₛ| ≤ 2)
Q      = Question formation (assertion-free)
J      = Judgment ∈ {Address(c), Dismiss, Probe}
c      = Clarification (user-provided response to Q)
A      = Adjustment: J × D × Σ → Σ'
Σ      = State { reviewed: Set(GapType), deferred: List(G), blocked: Bool }
AuditedDecision = Σ' where (∀ task ∈ registered: task.status = completed) ∨ user_esc

── PHASE TRANSITIONS ──
Phase 0: D → committed?(D) → Scan(D) → G              -- checkpoint + detection (silent)
Phase 1: G → TaskCreate[all gaps] → Gₛ → Qs(Gₛ[0]) → Stop → J  -- register all, surface first [Tool]
Phase 2: J → A(J, D, Σ) → TaskUpdate → Σ'           -- adjustment + task update [Tool]

── LOOP ──
After Phase 2: re-scan for newly surfaced gaps from user response.
If new gaps: TaskCreate → add to queue.
Continue until: all tasks completed OR user ESC.
Mode remains active until convergence.
Convergence evidence: At all-tasks-completed, present audit trace — for each g ∈ registered, show (GapUnnoticed(g) → user_judgment(g) → adjustment(g)). Convergence is demonstrated by the complete audit record, not asserted by task status.

── ADJUSTMENT RULES ──
A(Address(c), _, σ) = σ { incorporate(c) }           -- extern: modifies plan
A(Dismiss, _, σ)    = σ { reviewed ← reviewed ∪ {Gₛ.type} }
A(Probe, _, σ)      = σ { re-scan(expanded) }        -- additional verification round (depth varies by stakes)

── SELECTION RULE ──
Sel(G, d) = take(priority_sort(G, stakes(d)), min(|G|, stakes(d) = High ? 2 : 1))

── CONTINUATION ──
proceed(Σ) = ¬blocked(Σ)

── TOOL GROUNDING ──
-- Realization: Constitution → TextPresent+Stop; Extension → TextPresent+Proceed
Qs (constitution)      → present (mandatory; Esc key → loop termination at LOOP level, not a Judgment)
Σ (track)      → TaskCreate/TaskUpdate (async gap tracking with dependencies)
Scan (observe) → Read, Grep (stored knowledge extraction: context for gap identification)
A (track)      → Internal state update (no external tool)
converge (extension)   → TextPresent+Proceed (convergence evidence trace; proceed with audited decision)

── MODE STATE ──
Λ = { phase: Phase, state: Σ, active: Bool }

── COMPOSITION ──
*: product — (D₁ × D₂) → (R₁ × R₂). graph.json edges preserved. Dimension resolution emergent via session context.

Core Principle

Surfacing over Deciding: AI makes visible; user judges.

Distinction from Other Protocols

ProtocolInitiatorDeficit → ResolutionFocus
ProthesisAI-guidedFrameworkAbsent → FramedInquiryPerspective selection
SyneidesisAI-guidedGapUnnoticed → AuditedDecisionDecision-point gaps
HermeneiaHybridIntentMisarticulated → ClarifiedIntentExpression clarification
TelosAI-guidedGoalIndeterminate → DefinedEndStateGoal co-construction
HorismosAI-guidedBoundaryUndefined → DefinedBoundaryEpistemic boundary definition
AitesisAI-guidedContextInsufficient → InformedExecutionContext sufficiency sensing
AnalogiaAI-guidedMappingUncertain → ValidatedMappingAbstract-concrete mapping validation
PeriagogeAI-guidedAbstractionInProcess → CrystallizedAbstractionIn-process abstraction crystallization
ProsocheUser-initiatedExecutionBlind → SituatedExecutionRisk-assessed execution
EpharmogeAI-guidedApplicationDecontextualized → ContextualizedExecutionPost-execution applicability
AnamnesisAI-guidedRecallAmbiguous → RecalledContextVague recall recognition
KatalepsisUser-initiatedResultUngrasped → VerifiedUnderstandingComprehension verification

Key difference: Syneidesis audits the user's decision quality at committed action points (metacognitive: "has the user considered all angles?"). This is distinct from Aitesis, which monitors AI's context sufficiency (heterocognitive: "do I have enough context to execute?"), and Epharmoge, which evaluates AI's execution quality post-hoc ("does the result fit the context?"). The operational test: if the gap would be filled by the user reconsidering their decision, it's Syneidesis; if by providing context, it's Aitesis; if by adapting the result, it's Epharmoge.

Mode Activation

Activation

Command invocation activates mode until session end.

Activation layers:

  • Layer 1 (User-invocable): /gap slash command or description-matching input. Always available.
  • Layer 2 (AI-guided): Committed action detected with observable, unaddressed gaps via in-protocol heuristics.

On activation: Check existing Tasks for deferred gaps (subject prefix [Gap:). Resume tracking if found.

Priority

<system-reminder> When Syneidesis is active:

Supersedes: Risk assessment and decision gating rules in loaded instructions (e.g., verification tiers, reversibility checks, approval requirements)

Retained: Safety boundaries, secrets handling, deny-paths, user explicit instructions

Action: At decision points, present potential gaps via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution). </system-reminder>

  • Stakes Assessment replaces tier-based gating
  • All decision points become candidates for interactive confirmation
  • Loaded instructions resume after mode deactivation

Protocol precedence: Activation order position 8/10 (graph.json is authoritative source for information flow). Concern cluster: Decision.

Advisory relationships: Receives from Prothesis (advisory: perspective simulation provides gap detection context), Analogia (advisory: validated mapping improves gap detection accuracy), Horismos (advisory: BoundaryMap narrows gap detection scope). Provides to Aitesis (suppression: same scope suppression). Katalepsis is structurally last.

Mode Deactivation

TriggerEffect
Task completionAuto-deactivate after final resolution

Plan Mode Integration

When combined with Plan mode, apply Syneidesis at Phase boundaries:

Phase TransitionGap Check Focus
Planning → ImplementationScope completeness, missing requirements
Phase N → Phase N+1Previous phase completion, dependency satisfaction
Implementation → CommitChanged assumptions, deferred decisions

Cycle: [Deliberation → Gap → Revision → Execution]

  1. Deliberation: Plan mode analysis generates recommendations (Prothesis provides multi-perspective deliberation when active)
  2. Gap: Syneidesis surfaces unconfirmed assumptions via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution)
  3. Revision: Integrate user response, re-evaluate if needed
  4. Execution: Only after explicit scope confirmation

Sequencing with Prothesis: Following the default ordering, Prothesis completes perspective selection before Syneidesis applies gap detection. The cycle becomes: [Perspective Selection → Deliberation → Syneidesis → Revision → Execution]. The user can override this ordering by explicitly requesting Syneidesis first.

This cycle repeats per planning phase or domain area.

Conditions

Essential (all must hold)

ConditionPredicateTest
Committed actioncommitted(D)∃ A : mutates_state(A) ∨ externally_visible(A) ∨ consumes_resource(A)
Observable gap∃ G : observable(G)Concrete indicator exists in context (not speculation)
Unaddressed¬mentioned(G, context)Gap not already raised or resolved in session

Scope limitation: committed(D) captures execution commitment (actions with immediate effects). It does not capture direction commitment — decisions that constrain future work without immediate state change (e.g., "let's use PostgreSQL", "refactor auth to OAuth2"). Direction commitment is partially covered by Plan Mode Integration, which applies Gap at phase boundaries where such decisions materialize into execution plans.

Modulating Factors (adjust intensity, not applicability)

FactorEffectHeuristic signals
Irreversibilitystakes ↑"delete", "push", "deploy", "migrate"
Impact scopestakes ↑"all", "every", "entire", production, security
Time pressurestakes ↑ (gap miss probability increases)"quickly", "just", "right now"
Uncertaintyscan range ↑"maybe", "probably", "I think"

Skip

  • ¬committed(D): read-only, informational, exploratory actions
  • User explicitly confirmed in current session
  • Mechanical task (no judgment involved)
  • User already mentioned the gap category

Gap Taxonomy

TypeDetectionQuestion Form
ProceduralExpected step absent from user's stated plan"Was [step] completed?"
ConsiderationRelevant factor not mentioned in decision"Was [factor] considered?"
AssumptionUnstated premise inferred from framing"Are you assuming [X]?"
AlternativeKnown option not referenced"Was [alternative] considered?"

Emergent gap detection: Named types are working hypotheses, not exhaustive categories. Detect Emergent gaps when:

  • The unaddressed gap spans multiple named types (e.g., a procedural absence driven by an unstated assumption)
  • User dismisses all named-type gaps but the committed action still exhibits observable risk
  • The decision context involves domain-specific considerations that resist classification into four generic types

Emergent gaps must satisfy morphism GapUnnoticed → AuditedDecision and use adapted question forms.

Protocol

Detection (Silent)

Per Phase 0 formal block. Stakes mapping (from modulating factors):

  • Irreversible + High impact → High stakes
  • Irreversible + Low impact → Medium stakes
  • Reversible + Any impact → Low stakes
  • Time pressure → stakes ↑ one level

Cross-session enrichment: Repeated gap patterns accumulated in Anamnesis's hypomnesis store (session recall indices written by the SessionEnd/PreCompact hook) may adjust gap type weighting during scanning — frequently surfaced gap categories receive higher detection sensitivity. In parallel, when /recollect has been invoked this session, the recalled context surfaces prior gap categories the user has frequently overlooked in comparable decisions, further adjusting detection weights toward those blind spots. This is a heuristic input that may bias detection toward previously observed patterns; constitutive judgment remains with the user.

Revision threshold: When accumulated Emergent gap detections across 3+ sessions cluster around a recognizable pattern that the named gap types fail to capture, the cost of maintaining the current taxonomy exceeds the cost of adding a named type — promote the Emergent cluster. Conversely, when a named type consistently yields zero detections across 3+ sessions, consider whether it remains a distinct gap category or has become observationally inert — consistently undetected despite applicable contexts.

Surfacing

Present the gap as text output:

  • Gap: [Specific gap description with evidence]
  • (rationale: [1-line why this gap matters for this decision])

Then present:

How would you like to address this gap?

Options:
1. **Address** — [what resolving this gap enables or changes in the decision]
2. **Dismiss** — [what assumption holds if this gap is accepted as-is]
3. **Probe** — request additional verification before deciding (rationale depth varies by stakes)

Option 3 (Probe) is always visible. When stakes(D) = High, present with expanded verification rationale; otherwise, present with brief rationale. Recognition over Recall: hiding Probe forces the user to recall that deeper verification is available.

Other is always available — user can respond freely beyond the listed options.

One gap per decision point. Exception: Multiple high-stakes gaps → surface up to 2, prioritized by irreversibility.

Resolution

Per ADJUSTMENT RULES. Key operational detail: Probe triggers a re-scan with expanded scope, surfacing additional gaps the user wants verified before committing.

Gap Tracking

Task format:

TaskCreate({
  subject: "[Gap:Type] Question",
  description: "Rationale and context for this gap",
  activeForm: "Surfacing [Type] gap"
})

Dependencies: Use addBlockedBy when gaps have logical dependencies (e.g., "backup location" blocked by "backup exists?").

Interactive Surfacing (Constitution)

When Syneidesis is active, present via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution) for:

Constitution presentation yields turn for user response.

TriggerAction
Any confirmation neededPresent as structured options
High-stakes + multiple gapsPresent priority choices
Assumption gapAlways confirm (inference may be wrong)
Interpretive uncertaintyAsk whether gap exists before surfacing
Naming/structure decisionsOffer alternatives with rationale

UX rationale: Task list renders persistently in UI with progress indicator. User sees total gap count upfront. Dependencies visible via blocking relationships.

Re-scan trigger: User response may reveal new gaps (e.g., "Yes, backed up" → "Where?" precision gap). Always re-scan after each response.

UI Mapping

EnvironmentAddressDismissProbe
Constitution interactionSelectionSelectionSelection

Note: Esc key → unconditional loop termination (LOOP level). Constitution interaction blocks until response or Esc.

Intensity

LevelWhenFormat
LightReversible, low impactConstitution interaction with Confirm as default option
MediumReversible + high impact, OR Irreversible + low impactConstitution interaction with rationale context
HeavyIrreversible + high impactDetailed rationale + Constitution interaction with explicit options

Rules

  1. AI-guided, user-judged: Question > Assertion — ask "was X considered?", never "you missed X"
  2. Observable evidence: Surface only gaps with concrete indicators
  3. User authority: Dismissal is final
  4. Minimal intrusion: Lightest intervention that achieves awareness
  5. Stakes calibration: Intensity follows stakes matrix above
  6. Gap dependencies: Use task blocking when gaps have logical order
  7. Context-Question Separation: Output all analysis, evidence, and rationale as text before presenting via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution). The question contains only the essential question; options contain only option-specific differential implications. Embedding context in question fields = protocol violation
  8. Convergence evidence: Present convergence audit trace before declaring all tasks completed; per-gap evidence is required
  9. Zero-gap surfacing: If Scan(D) finds no gaps, present scan methodology and conclusion — committed decisions with stakes warrant explicit "no gaps found" confirmation
  10. No gap inflation: Do not surface gaps that lack observable evidence merely to appear thorough. Each surfaced gap must cite specific context from D
  11. Option-set relay test (Extension classification): If AI analysis converges to a single dominant option (option-level entropy→0 — Extension mode of the Cognitive Partnership Move), present the finding directly. Each Constitution option must be genuinely viable under different user value weightings. Options sharing a downstream trajectory collapse to one; options lacking an on-axis trajectory surface as free-response pathways rather than peer options
  12. Gate integrity: The defined option set is presented intact — injection, deletion, and substitution each violate this invariant. Type-preserving materialization (specializing a generic option while preserving the TYPES coproduct) is distinct from mutation
Repository
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
Last updated
Created

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.