「falsifiability」の検索結果

Performs ARA Seal Level 2 semantic epistemic review on Agent-Native Research Artifacts, scoring six dimensions (evidence relevance, falsifiability, scope calibration, argument coherence, exploration integrity, methodological rigor) and producing a constructive, severity-ranked report with a Strong Accept-to-Reject recommendation. Use after Level 1 structural validation passes, when an ARA needs an objective epistemic critique before publication or release.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Role profile — a reviewer who is fact-seeking, bedrock-seeking, honest, and rejecting. Demands that arguments rest on small facts that cannot be wrong (not on stacked assumptions dressed up as foundation), and that deliberately-unclear concepts be quarantined — never leaked into solid layers, never mixed with each other. Catches the failure mode where designs ship after partial grounding: most of the spec researched, the design feels finished, and the unresearched remainder holds the deal-breaker. Invoke with `/pedantic <target>` (e.g. `/pedantic review this design doc`, `/pedantic review the SDK design`, `/pedantic review this PR`). Probes cover logical structure (definitions, assumptions, boundaries, contradictions, unfalsifiability, vague quantifiers, counterexamples), epistemic honesty (researchable vs. discoverable-only-by-doing), bedrock integrity (assumed-bedrock, leaked uncertainty, mixed unclarity), and design pathology (YAGNI, wrong-layer abstraction, unclear responsibility, fragmentation, over-engineering). Use when you want a hard critique of a plan, design doc, technical doc, code change, or PR description — not a copy edit, not a vibe check.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarial verification of research theses — cross-run/cross-thesis contradiction via the entity index, pre-mortem (Klarman/Kahneman: assume the loss already happened, reverse the path), inversion (Munger: invert, always invert), and wrong_if falsifiability review. ≈50-finding cap sorted by severity; content-derived finding IDs; incremental scoping with three backstops; lifecycle hooks at pillar-complete / thesis-complete / pre-reduction.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reviewing, critiquing, or stress-testing an existing strategy document. Evaluates seven dimensions — diagnosis quality, guiding policy strength, action coherence, assumption exposure, falsifiability — with optional 7S, Five Forces, Balanced Scorecard, and Hoshin Kanri lenses. Triggers on: review my strategy, poke holes in this plan, what's weak here, strategy audit, red team this. Does NOT build strategy (use strategy-interview) or brainstorm project ideas (use brainstorm-beagle).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Continuous self-reflection routine combining Schön (reflection-in-action / reflection-on-action) and Mezirow (content / process / premise) levels, anchored on KAMI values (val-002 глубина, val-007 честность перед собой, принцип 1 правда, принцип 2 нулевая толерантность к бреду). Triggers FIRE DURING THE TURN, not at end. Use when: (1) about to make a 2nd+ patch attempt at the same problem, (2) user pushes back with "стоп / нет / опять / так, ещё раз / не то / пиздёж", (3) noticing self drifting into "I think that..." without evidence, (4) about to report "готово", (5) copying a pattern from one place to another, (6) task took >2× expected time. Embeds scientific method (explicit hypotheses + falsifiability + prediction-first + alternatives) as substrate for premise-level reflection, not as ceremony.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

当用户在反思自己的认知局限、质疑群体共识、或在问"如何独立思考""怎么判断自己是不是被洗脑了""为什么我总觉得自己是对的""怎么避免从众"时激活。 核心信号：用户在做"元认知"——审视自己的思维过程本身，或在群体压力下试图保持独立判断。 不适用于：需要快速决策的紧急情况、纯技术性问题、不需要反思的信息查询。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。