Skill: shenjianjun687-ops/structured-falsification (version 1.0.1)

--- name: structured-falsification description: > Structured falsification framework for complex decision-making, investment analysis, technology selection, and multi-factor judgment. Use when: (1) evaluating multiple options with uncertain outcomes, (2) analyzing investment targets / business strategies, (3) making technology or architecture decisions, (4) performing due diligence or risk assessment, (5) user says "灵智模式", "深度思考", "deep thinking", "falsify", or "structured analysis". Can be auto-triggered by agents when facing high-uncertainty multi-factor decisions — no explicit keyword required. --- # Structured Falsification (结构化证伪法) A five-step reasoning framework that forces rigorous disconfirmation before arriving at conclusions. Designed for AI agents and LLMs to produce concise, high-confidence outputs on complex tasks. **Core principle: Show conclusions, not derivation.** The agent runs the full five-step process internally but outputs only the final ranked conclusions with confidence levels and key risks. Verbose reasoning is a sign the framework wasn't applied rigorously enough — tighten the analysis, don't expand the output. ## When to Auto-Trigger - Multiple competing options with no clear winner - User asks "should I…", "which one…", "what about…", "evaluate…", "compare…" - Investment target analysis, due diligence, competitive assessment - Technology selection, architecture decision, vendor evaluation - Any task where the cost of a wrong answer is high ## The Five Steps (internal process) ### Step 1: Decompose Value Nodes Map the problem space. Identify where real value / risk / leverage sits. - What does this problem *actually* need? (Not surface requirements — underlying drivers) - Map key entities and their relationships (supply chain / dependency graph / stakeholder map) - Classify each node: critical vs. nice-to-have vs. irrelevant ### Step 2: Falsify Each Candidate (core step) For every option / target / claim, run: 1. **Surface logic**: Why does the market / conventional wisdom support this? 2. **Challenge**: Where is the logic fragile? Causal chain breaks? Concept substitution? Hidden assumptions? 3. **Verdict**: Rate association strength — direct / indirect / tangential **Output: a falsification table** (internal) with columns: Candidate | Surface Logic | Challenge | Verdict ### Step 3: Identify True Beneficiaries / Best Options Apply priority filters: 1. **Infrastructure / tooling** (selling shovels during a gold rush) → highest certainty 2. **Core technology owners** (commercializable IP) → highest upside 3. **Application layer** (using tech to cut costs / add features) → value capture may be limited ### Step 4: Stress Test Survivors For each surviving candidate: - Is the causal chain A→B→C fully intact at every link? - Is there actual evidence? (Business data, orders, customers, benchmarks) - If this logic fails, how bad is the downside? - Any show-stopper that eliminates this candidate entirely? ### Step 5: Rank and Conclude - Sort by certainty (High / Medium / Low) - Attach to each: one-line logic, key assumption, core risk - Explicitly flag "not recommended" items with reasons - One-sentence bottom line ## Self-Correction Checklist Before producing output, verify: - [ ] Did I falsify hard enough? If every candidate survived, the filter is too loose. - [ ] Did I confuse "good company" with "good thesis"? Logic > quality. - [ ] Am I hedging excessively? Pick a direction. Uncertainty should be flagged, not hidden behind "it depends". - [ ] Did I anchor on the first plausible answer? Force a search for disconfirming evidence. - [ ] Is my output concise? If the conclusion section exceeds 50% of the total output, re-tighten. ## Output Format **Only output the following. No step-by-step narration. No "let me think about this".** ``` ## 结论 | # | 候选 | 判断 | 确定性 | 核心逻辑（一句话） | 关键假设 | 主要风险 | |---|------|------|--------|---------------------|----------|----------| | 1 | ... | ✅/⚠️/❌ | 高/中/低 | ... | ... | ... | | 2 | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | **一句话总结：** ... ``` ## Domain Configurations Load domain-specific checklists when the context matches: - **Investment analysis** → Read `references/investment.md` - **Technology selection** → Read `references/tech-decision.md` - **Other domains** → Use the generic framework above, or read a custom config from `references/` To create a custom domain config, copy `references/domain-template.md` and fill in the sections.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: suspicious (HIGH)