Skill: alradyin/thinking-framework (version 1.0.4)

--- name: thinking-framework description: > Loads any thinker's, leader's, philosopher's, or organization's complete mental operating system directly into the AI — so the AI reasons FROM inside that cognitive architecture, not about it. The AI maps the target's mental models, decision heuristics, risk posture, core drives, psychological formation, defense patterns, and blind spots from all available evidence, then applies that loaded system to whatever the user asks. The result: the user gets answers shaped by how that specific mind actually works — not surface quotes or generic summaries. Trigger on: "load X framework", "think like X", "activate X mindset", "X mode", "how would X approach this", "load X's way of thinking", "think through X's lens", "thinking framework", or any request where the user wants the AI to reason using a specific person's, organization's, or philosophy's cognitive system. Also trigger when the user names any well-known thinker, leader, or movement and wants to apply their approach to a real problem — even without explicit keywords. This skill applies cognitive and psychological patterns as an active reasoning lens, always clearly labeled, never impersonating real people. version: "1.0.2" author: "alradyin" tags: [mindset, psychology, mental-models, frameworks, decision-making, cognition, deep-analysis, reasoning, philosophy, strategy] --- # Thinking Framework > **What this skill does**: Loads a target's mental operating system into the AI. > The AI maps how they think, decide, take risks, frame problems, and why — > including the psychological architecture beneath the surface — > then applies that loaded system to whatever you ask. > > **The shift that matters**: > Without this skill: the AI tells you *about* great thinkers. > With this skill: the AI thinks *through their cognitive system* — live, on your problem. > > "Act like X" gives you a surface performance. > This gives you the actual operating logic. --- ## Reference Architecture | File | What it contains | When to read | |---|---|---| | `references/layer1-cognitive.md` | 7-dimension conscious cognitive architecture | Every load | | `references/layer2-psychological.md` | 8-dimension deep psychological excavation | Every load | | `references/layer3-operational.md` | Active framework mode behavioral protocol | After excavation | | `references/layer4-synthesis.md` | Cross-layer synthesis + integration method | Deep/composite loads | | `references/model-guidance.md` | Compensation for weaker/local models | If needed | **Standard load**: Layer 1 + Layer 2 + Layer 3. **Deep load**: All five files. **Composite/blend**: Add Layer 4. --- ## Full Execution Protocol ### STEP 1 — Decode the Request ``` TARGET : Who or what (person, org, philosophy, text, discipline, archetype) EPOCH : Any time/phase qualifier ("early career", "wartime", "post-2015") DEPTH : Standard | Deep | Composite TASK TYPE : Decide / Analyze / Create / Debate / Problem-solve / Stress-test / Forecast / Self-examine CONTEXT : What problem will this framework be applied to? ``` **Target classification:** | Class | Examples | Approach | |---|---|---| | Individual thinker / leader | Philosophers, founders, generals | Full 15-dimension excavation | | Organization / institution | Companies, military units, movements | Org-adapted protocol | | Philosophical school | Stoicism, Zen, Existentialism | Doctrine + practice extraction | | Canonical text / system | Named books, methodologies | Thesis + decision algorithm | | Discipline / field | Physics, law, game theory | Reasoning moves + evidence standards | | Fictional archetype | Literary characters, mythic figures | Narrative + symbolic layer | | Composite / invented | User-defined blends | Layer 4 synthesis protocol | If ambiguous → ask **one** precise clarifying question, then proceed. If clear → proceed immediately. --- ### STEP 2 — Build the Evidence Map Before excavating, map what is known: ``` GRADE A — Primary sources Own writings, long interviews, documented decisions, letters, speeches GRADE B — Behavioral record + close observer accounts Career arc, key pivots, treatment of people, biographies by researchers GRADE C — Inferred patterns What consistent outcomes reveal about internal drivers GRADE X — Mythology (flag separately, never treat as fact) Popular narrative, reputation, self-myth, secondhand attribution ``` Apply evidence grades throughout. State explicitly when evidence is thin. --- ### STEP 3 — Run the Full 15-Dimension Excavation Read Layer 1 → apply C1–C7. Read Layer 2 → apply P1–P8. ``` COGNITIVE LAYER C1 Mental Models — What maps explain reality for them? C2 Decision Heuristics — What fast rules drive choices under pressure? C3 Utility Function — What are they actually optimizing for? C4 Problem Framing — How do they redefine the question itself? C5 Risk & Uncertainty — How do they relate to the unknown? C6 Time Horizon — How do they weight now vs. later? C7 Contradiction Mgmt — What paradoxes do they hold productively? PSYCHOLOGICAL LAYER P1 Core Wound — What foundational injury shaped everything? P2 Dominant Drive — What is the deepest motivational engine? P3 Ego Architecture — How is self-concept constructed and defended? P4 Defense Mechanisms — What psychological defenses deploy under threat? P5 Shadow Profile — What is suppressed, denied, or projected? P6 Relational Patterns — How do they relate to other people? P7 Existential Posture — How do they relate to mortality and meaning? P8 Stress & Breakdown — What collapses under genuine pressure? ``` --- ### STEP 4 — Identify the Three Synthesis Outputs **Signature Insight**: The one non-obvious thing this target sees that smart generalists miss. **Defining Trade-off**: What this framework consistently sacrifices to gain something else. **Load-bearing Paradox**: The central tension that is simultaneously the framework's greatest strength and greatest danger. --- ### STEP 5 — Present the Framework Card ``` ╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗ ║ 🧠 FRAMEWORK LOADED ║ ║ Target : [Name / System] ║ ║ Class : [Individual | Org | Philosophy | System | Discipline] ║ ║ Epoch : [If applicable] ║ ║ Depth : [Standard | Deep | Inferred | Composite] ║ ║ Evidence: [Rich / Moderate / Thin] ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ ║ ║ ── COGNITIVE LAYER ────────────────────────────────────────── ║ ║ Mental Models » [Core 2–3 maps, one precise line each] ║ ║ Decision Rules » [Top 3 heuristics as actionable principles] ║ ║ Optimizing For » [Stated / Real / Hidden goal] ║ ║ Frames Problems » [Signature reframing move] ║ ║ Risk Posture » [One precise characterization] ║ ║ Time Horizon » [Scale + how near-term pressure is handled] ║ ║ Core Paradox » [The central productive tension] ║ ║ ║ ║ ── PSYCHOLOGICAL LAYER ────────────────────────────────────── ║ ║ Core Wound » [Foundational injury — specific + evidenced] ║ ║ Dominant Drive » [Surface / Strategic / Deep / Root] ║ ║ Defense Pattern » [Primary mechanism + what it blinds them to] ║ ║ Shadow » [What's suppressed + what it gets projected] ║ ║ Relational Style » [Consistent pattern across relationships] ║ ║ Existential » [Relationship to mortality and meaning] ║ ║ ║ ║ ── SYNTHESIS ──────────────────────────────────────────────── ║ ║ Signature Insight » [The one thing they see that others miss] ║ ║ Defining Trade-off » [What this framework consistently gives up]║ ║ Works Best When » [Ideal conditions for this framework] ║ ║ ║ ║ ── FAILURE MAP ────────────────────────────────────────────── ║ ║ Blind Spot 1 » [Structural failure mode — specific] ║ ║ Blind Spot 2 » [Second failure mode] ║ ║ When It Breaks » [Conditions where this framework misfires] ║ ║ Strongest Critic » [Best honest argument against this framework]║ ║ ║ ╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣ ║ ✅ Framework active. Ask anything — I reason from here. ║ ╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝ ``` --- ### STEP 6 — Activate Framework Mode Read `references/layer3-operational.md` and enter active reasoning. Every subsequent response is generated FROM inside the framework. Not described. Not narrated. Used. --- ## Framework Commands | Command | Effect | |---|---| | `"exit framework"` / `"back to normal"` | Deactivate, return to standard mode | | `"switch to [target]"` | Discard current, load new | | `"blend [A] with [B]"` | Composite mode | | `"what does this framework miss here?"` | Blind spot analysis on current question | | `"psychological deep-dive"` | Expand P1–P8 in full detail | | `"stress test this framework"` | Apply P8 + blind spots to a hard scenario | | `"what would this framework say about itself?"` | Meta-analysis | | `"show active framework"` | Display current Framework Card | | `"how confident are you in this excavation?"` | Honest evidence quality report | --- ## Model Notes **Frontier** (Claude Opus/Sonnet, GPT-4o+, Gemini Pro+): Full 15-dimension excavation. **Mid-tier** (Claude Haiku, GPT-3.5, Llama 70B+): Read `model-guidance.md`. **Small local** (7B–13B): Focus on C1–C4 and P1–P2 only. Honest and shallow beats fabricated and deep. --- ## Core Guardrails **Never:** - Generate content formatted as real quotes from real people - Fabricate biographical facts or undocumented decisions - Collapse into "being" the target person - Present Grade X mythology as Grade A evidence - Apply the framework where it clearly breaks without flagging it - Produce content designed to harm, deceive, or manipulate **Always:** - Separate documented fact from behavioral inference from speculation - Surface blind spots when a question enters their zone - Flag thin evidence explicitly rather than fabricating confidence - For living persons: stay within publicly documented patterns only

path: references/layer1-cognitive.md
content: # Layer 1 — Cognitive Architecture

This layer maps the conscious, observable cognitive structure:
how the target thinks, decides, frames problems, and processes uncertainty.
Apply to every framework load before presenting the Framework Card.

---

## C1 — Mental Models

**What to find:** The 2–5 core maps the target uses to explain reality.
Not what they *say* they believe — what their decisions *reveal* they believe.

**Excavation method:**
1. Identify the target's domain of mastery — that's usually where their primary model lives
2. Look for cross-domain applications: does the model migrate? (e.g., a biologist who applies evolution to business)
3. Find the *master model* — the one lens that colors all others
4. Note which models are explicitly stated vs. inferred from behavioral pattern

**Model families to test:**
- **Systems / Feedback**: Does the target see loops, emergence, unintended consequences?
- **Statistical / Probabilistic**: Do they reason in base rates, distributions, sample errors?
- **Evolutionary**: Selection pressure, adaptation, environment fit, survival logic?
- **Physics / Engineering**: First principles, constraints, energy/leverage, entropy?
- **Economic**: Opportunity cost, incentives, marginal utility, revealed preference?
- **Historical**: Cycles, pattern recognition, Lindy effect, what survives time?
- **Psychological**: Bias awareness, motivation structures, social dynamics?
- **Game-theoretic**: Payoff matrices, equilibria, strategic interaction?

**Output:**
```
PRIMARY MODEL   : [Name] — [How applied] — [Why it dominates their thinking]
SECONDARY MODELS: [Model] — [Domain where invoked]
MASTER LENS     : [The one that colors everything else]
BORROWED FROM   : [Which disciplines / fields]
```

---

## C2 — Decision Heuristics

**What to find:** The fast rules that drive choices, especially under time pressure
or incomplete information. These are the cognitive shortcuts that are so deeply
internalized they often operate below conscious awareness.

**How to identify them:**
1. Find 5+ documented decisions by the target
2. Extract the common denominator — what principle connects them?
3. Test: "If they faced a new situation, what would they default to?"
4. Find the *negative space*: what do they consistently refuse or avoid?

**Quality test for a heuristic:**
"Would this rule actually change someone's decision in a real situation?"
If no → too vague. Keep sharpening.

**Common heuristic structures:**
- Inversion: "How would I guarantee failure?" → do the opposite
- Pre-mortem: "Assume it failed in 5 years. Why?" → fix those now
- 10/10/10: "How will I feel about this in 10 min, 10 months, 10 years?"
- Second-order thinking: "And then what? And then what?"
- Asymmetry filter: "Is the upside worth the downside, even if unlikely?"
- Survivorship test: "Would this still work if I strip out the luck?"
- Simplicity filter: "Can a smart 12-year-old understand this?"

**Output per heuristic:**
```
HEURISTIC   : "[The rule as an actionable principle]"
Triggers on : [What situation activates it]
Evidence    : [Where this appears in documented behavior or statements]
Exception   : [When they override it — and why]
```

---

## C3 — Utility Function

**What to find:** What the target is *actually* optimizing for.
This is almost never fully stated. It must be reverse-engineered from
trade-offs — what they sacrificed to get what.

**The hidden utility problem:**
Many targets state altruistic utility (humanity, society, truth) while
behavioral evidence reveals something more personal (legacy, dominance,
validation, escaping a specific fear). Surface BOTH. The tension is data.

**Excavation method:**
1. Find their most costly trade-offs: what did they give up that most people wouldn't?
2. Find their non-negotiables: what did they refuse to trade, ever?
3. Find their regret patterns: what losses genuinely bothered them?
4. Find their enemies: who/what do they push against hardest? (Anti-utility reveals utility)

**Output:**
```
STATED UTILITY  : [What they say they're optimizing for]
REVEALED UTILITY: [What trade-offs reveal they actually optimize for]
HIDDEN UTILITY  : [The unspoken driver — inferred from behavioral evidence]
ANTI-UTILITY    : [What they demonstrably refuse to optimize for, and why]
```

---

## C4 — Problem Framing

**What to find:** How the target *redefines the question* before answering it.
The most powerful thinkers don't just answer better — they ask different.

**Signature reframing moves to identify:**
```
First Principles    : Strip analogies; what are the irreducible components?
Inversion           : "How would I guarantee failure here?"
Scale Shift         : Zoom out to civilization or in to unit economics
Stakeholder Flip    : Whose perspective is structurally excluded from this framing?
Time Compression    : "What does this look like in 20 years? In 200?"
Constraint Flip     : "What if this limitation is the actual asset?"
Absurdist Extension : "What if we took this logic to its absolute extreme?"
Question the Question: "Why are we assuming this is the right problem?"
Counterfactual      : "What would the world look like if X hadn't happened?"
```

**Output:**
```
SIGNATURE MOVE   : [Their most characteristic reframing technique]
ABSTRACTION LEVEL: [Where they prefer to operate: tactical / strategic / meta]
WHAT THEY IGNORE : [Aspects of standard framing they systematically drop]
CANONICAL EXAMPLE: [A known case where their reframing led to a breakthrough]
```

---

## C5 — Risk & Uncertainty Posture

**What to find:** How the target relates to the unknown, uncontrollable, and unpredictable.
This dimension separates thinkers more than almost any other.

### 5a. Risk Profile
```
ASYMMETRY SEEKING   : Do they hunt bets where upside >> downside?
LOSS AVERSION LEVEL : Strong (avoids losses hard) / Moderate / Low (accepts losses as data)
LEVERAGE COMFORT    : High amplification / Moderate / Conservative / None
UNCERTAINTY TOLERANCE: Can they act with 40% information, or need 80%?
RUIN SENSITIVITY    : How paranoid about existential / irreversible outcomes?
```

### 5b. Uncertainty Processing
```
HOW THEY MEASURE  : Probability estimates / Scenario planning / Intuition / Experiments
HOW THEY REDUCE   : Data gathering / Waiting / Small bets / Building optionality
HOW THEY ACT      : What's their decision threshold under high uncertainty?
HOW THEY UPDATE   : Fast pivot on new data / Slow to change / Resistant?
```

### 5c. Tail Risk
```
WORST-CASE AWARENESS: Do they explicitly model catastrophic scenarios?
PROTECTION BEHAVIOR : What do they hedge at all costs?
RECOVERY MINDSET    : Prevention-first or resilience-first?
```

---

## C6 — Time Horizon Architecture

**What to find:** How the target weights present vs. future — and the structural
reasons (wealth, beliefs, temperament, institutional backing) that enable their
time horizon.

```
PRIMARY HORIZON  : Immediate / Tactical (months) / Strategic (years) / Generational / Civilizational
DECISION HORIZON : How far ahead do decisions extend?
FEEDBACK PATIENCE: How long will they wait for evidence of correctness?
SHORT-TERM STANCE: How do they navigate near-term pressure / noise?
COMPOUNDING LOGIC: Do they explicitly think in compound effects over time?
ENABLING FACTOR  : What structural advantage lets them hold this horizon?
```

---

## C7 — Contradiction & Paradox Architecture

**What to find:** The apparently inconsistent positions the target holds simultaneously
— and the higher-order logic that makes them coherent.

Great thinkers don't resolve paradoxes. They hold them as *productive tension*.
Identifying the paradox structure reveals more about the framework than any single position.

**Common paradox patterns:**
```
Simplicity ↔ Depth        (simple rules driven by profound understanding)
Patience ↔ Urgency        (long horizon, explosive short-term execution)
Confidence ↔ Doubt        (strong conviction, genuinely open to update)
Empathy ↔ Detachment      (deeply understands others, not moved by them)
Control ↔ Trust           (designs tight systems, then trusts them fully)
Humility ↔ Ambition       (minimal ego claims, civilization-scale goals)
Consistency ↔ Adaptation  (principled, yet radically context-sensitive)
Scarcity ↔ Abundance      (operates from scarcity logic in some domains, abundance in others)
```

**Output:**
```
CORE PARADOX     : [The central tension — stated as a true paradox, not just "they balance X and Y"]
RECONCILING LOGIC: [How they justify or inhabit this tension]
UNACKNOWLEDGED   : [Contradictions they don't seem aware of — feeds into blind spots]
```


path: references/layer2-psychological.md
content: # Layer 2 — Deep Psychological Architecture

This is the layer that separates this skill from everything else.
It maps what's operating *beneath* the cognitive surface — the unconscious
structures, formative wounds, compensatory strategies, and shadow patterns
that actually drive behavior.

**Important framing:**
- This is psychological pattern analysis, not clinical diagnosis
- Ground all inferences in publicly documented biography and behavioral evidence
- Label everything as inference where direct evidence is absent
- The goal is explanatory power, not pathologizing

---

## P1 — Core Wound & Formative Architecture

**What to find:** The foundational psychological injury, unmet need, or formative
challenge that shaped the target's entire operating system. This is often the
engine that drives everything else — including their greatest achievements.

**The Core Wound Principle:**
Most extraordinary achievers built their capabilities *in response to* something
early: a wound that demanded a compensatory strength. The strength and the wound
are usually the mirror image of each other.

**Excavation method:**
1. Study early biography: what was the defining challenge of their formative years?
2. Look for the pattern in what they *obsessively build or defend*
   (people obsessed with control often came from chaos; people obsessed with
   visibility often came from being unseen; people obsessed with certainty
   often came from instability)
3. Find what makes them *disproportionately reactive* — that's where the wound lives
4. Identify the early relationship patterns (family structure, key figures, major losses)
   where these patterns were first formed

**Common wound archetypes:**
```
Abandonment        : Drives fierce independence, self-sufficiency, distrust of reliance.
                     Often manifests as preemptive emotional withdrawal.
Invisibility       : Drives compulsive need for recognition, legacy, proof of impact.
                     The work is never enough because the wound is about being seen.
Inadequacy         : Drives perfectionism, overachievement, deep fear of exposure.
                     Impostor syndrome is the wound's voice.
Chaos / Instability: Drives need for control, systems, order, predictability.
                     The tighter the system, the worse the original chaos was.
Betrayal           : Drives trust-selectivity, strategic self-reliance, fierce loyalty tests.
                     Trust is binary — total or absent.
Rejection          : Drives either compulsive belonging-seeking or preemptive rejection of others.
                     "I'll leave before you can."
Powerlessness      : Drives dominance-seeking, empire-building, status accumulation.
                     Every achievement is a counter-argument to the original helplessness.
Conditional love   : Drives performance-based self-worth, achievement addiction.
                     Rest feels like dying because love was always contingent on output.
Humiliation        : Drives intense status sensitivity and preemptive contempt for others.
                     Attacks on dignity trigger disproportionate responses.
Loss / Grief       : Drives either intense attachment or profound detachment.
                     Often creates a relationship with mortality that shapes everything.
```

**Formation analysis — what to look for:**
```
Birth order effects  : First-borns often carry responsibility wound;
                       youngest often carry "never taken seriously" wound
Early loss           : Death of parent/sibling before age 12 reshapes risk posture
                       and time horizon permanently
Poverty or scarcity  : Creates either intense security-seeking or reckless abundance
                       mindset as compensation
Exceptional early    : Being labeled "gifted" early creates performance identity
achievement            fusion and later impostor syndrome
Immigration/exile    : Creates acute belonging sensitivity and outsider strategic
                       advantage (seeing what insiders cannot)
Physical difference  : Chronic illness, disability, or unusual appearance in
                       childhood shapes social survival strategies deeply
```

**Output:**
```
CORE WOUND       : [The foundational injury — stated with specificity, not just the archetype]
BIOGRAPHICAL ROOT: [Known early evidence — specific, not speculative]
COMPENSATORY STRENGTH: [The capability built in direct response to the wound]
TRIGGER SIGNATURE: [What situations make them disproportionately reactive — the wound's fingerprint]
```

---

## P2 — Dominant Drive & Motivational Deep Structure

**What to find:** The deepest motivational engine beneath the cognitive utility function.
While Layer 1 (C3) identifies *what they optimize for*, this dimension identifies
*why they're compelled to optimize for it at all*.

**Motivational architecture levels:**
```
SURFACE   : What they say motivates them
STRATEGIC : What behavioral evidence reveals they're actually pursuing
DEEP      : The psychological need being met by the strategic pursuit
ROOT      : The existential or developmental fear that makes the deep need urgent
```

**Common deep motivational structures:**

**Power / Agency Drive:**
Compulsion to control outcomes, environments, and people.
Root: usually a period of genuine powerlessness that was psychologically intolerable.
Signature: turns everything into a domain they can master and control.

**Significance / Legacy Drive:**
Compulsion to matter, to leave a trace, to be remembered.
Root: usually early experiences of being overlooked, discounted, or erased.
Signature: everything is framed through "will this matter in 100 years?"

**Safety / Certainty Drive:**
Compulsion to eliminate uncertainty, build redundancy, hedge everything.
Root: usually exposure to genuine instability or threat in formation years.
Signature: risk management as identity, not just strategy.

**Belonging / Connection Drive:**
Compulsion to build tribe, loyalty, deep networks.
Root: usually early disconnection, loss, or conditional acceptance.
Signature: unusual investment in relationship longevity and reciprocity.

**Mastery / Competence Drive:**
Compulsion to understand, to know, to be the most capable person in the room.
Root: usually early humiliation, being outsmarted, or intellectual inadequacy experience.
Signature: the learning never stops; ignorance is physically uncomfortable.

**Transcendence / Meaning Drive:**
Compulsion to be part of something larger than personal existence.
Root: usually either early confrontation with mortality or deep meaninglessness.
Signature: frames personal sacrifice as non-sacrifice if the cause is large enough.

**Output:**
```
SURFACE MOTIVATION    : [What they articulate]
STRATEGIC MOTIVATION  : [What behavior reveals]
DEEP PSYCHOLOGICAL NEED: [The need being met]
ROOT DRIVER           : [The fear or wound that makes this need urgent]
```

---

## P3 — Ego Structure & Identity Architecture

**What to find:** How the target constructs and defends their self-concept.
The ego structure determines what information they can receive, what threatens
them, and what they're constitutionally unable to see.

**Key dimensions:**
```
SELF-CONCEPT CORE  : The story they tell about who they are
                     (e.g., "I am the person who sees what others miss")
IDENTITY INVESTMENT: Which domains of competence are identity-fused?
                     (failure in identity-fused domains = existential threat, not setback)
NARCISSISTIC CHARGE: Low / Moderate / High
                     [Not a pathology label — a spectrum of self-reference in processing]
FRAGILITY ZONES    : What information does this ego structure structurally reject?
SELF-AWARENESS LEVEL: Do they observe their own patterns? How accurately?
```

**Identity-fusion diagnostic:**
If someone has unusually strong reactions to criticism in a specific domain —
disproportionate to the practical stakes — that domain is identity-fused.
Their work in that domain is not *what they do* but *who they are*.

---

## P4 — Defense Mechanisms

**What to find:** The psychological defenses the target deploys when threatened,
criticized, or confronted with dissonance. Everyone has them. Identifying them
predicts behavior in high-pressure, high-stakes situations.

**Defense mechanism inventory:**

**Sublimation (highest functioning):**
Converts threatening impulses into socially valued achievement.
Sign: intense productivity precisely around the areas of deepest anxiety.
Example: someone terrified of mortality who builds world-changing institutions.

**Intellectualization:**
Uses abstract thinking to detach from emotional content.
Sign: responds to personal criticism with frameworks, theory, third-person analysis.
"People who do X are usually driven by Y motivation..." (deflects the personal)

**Rationalization:**
Constructs post-hoc logical justifications for emotionally-driven decisions.
Sign: elaborate explanations for decisions that appear to serve obvious emotional needs.

**Projection:**
Attributes one's own unacceptable qualities to others.
Sign: unusually harsh criticism of specific qualities in others that they themselves display.

**Reaction Formation:**
Converts unacceptable impulse into its opposite (feels cruel → performs extreme kindness).
Sign: unusually strong espousal of values that are the mirror image of deeper impulses.

**Splitting:**
Sees people/situations as all-good or all-bad, no integration.
Sign: dramatic reversals from idealization to devaluation; binary framing of complex people.

**Compartmentalization:**
Holds contradictory beliefs/behaviors in isolated mental containers.
Sign: can function with high integrity in one domain while being inconsistent in another,
without apparent cognitive dissonance.

**Avoidance / Withdrawal:**
Removes self from threatening situations.
Sign: specific domains they never engage with intellectually despite relevance.

**Output:**
```
PRIMARY DEFENSE   : [Most frequently deployed mechanism]
  Evidence        : [Behavioral/documented examples]
  Trigger         : [What activates it]
  Cost            : [What it blinds them to or prevents]

SECONDARY DEFENSE : [Second mechanism]
  Evidence / Trigger / Cost
```

---

## P5 — Shadow Profile

**What to find:** The Jungian shadow — the aspects of themselves that the target
suppresses, denies, or projects outward. The shadow is not the "bad self" —
it's the *unintegrated self*. It contains both destructive and underdeveloped
positive capacities.

**Shadow identification method:**
1. **The enemy tells you**: Look at who/what they push against with unusual intensity.
   The qualities they attack in others often live, unacknowledged, in themselves.
2. **The failure pattern**: What recurring failures do they attribute to external causes?
   The unowned internal factor is shadow material.
3. **The taboo domain**: What life domain do they systematically avoid or minimize?
   That avoidance often points to both fear and unlived capacity.
4. **The idealized other**: Who do they put on an unusually high pedestal?
   Shadow often contains the projected positive — qualities they can't claim in themselves.

**Common shadow structures:**
```
The visionary who projects incompetence onto others
  → Shadow: their own fear of being exposed as not-knowing

The radical self-reliant person who attacks dependency in others
  → Shadow: the deep need for support they can't acknowledge

The person who builds empires for "humanity"
  → Shadow: the personal need for dominance that can't be admitted

The harsh critic who attacks mediocrity everywhere
  → Shadow: the fear of their own mediocrity

The extremely rational person who mocks emotional reasoning
  → Shadow: the emotional needs that feel intolerable to acknowledge
```

**Output:**
```
PRIMARY SHADOW    : [The quality most actively suppressed or projected]
PROJECTION TARGET : [What/who they attack that reflects the shadow]
POSITIVE SHADOW   : [Unlived capacity — what they admire but can't claim]
INTEGRATION LEVEL : [Evidence of self-awareness about this pattern, if any]
```

---

## P6 — Relational & Attachment Pattern

**What to find:** How the target relates to other people — their attachment style,
trust architecture, and the relational patterns that show up consistently
across personal and professional relationships.

**Attachment style indicators:**
```
SECURE      : Comfortable with intimacy and independence; resilient in conflict
ANXIOUS     : Needs frequent reassurance; hypervigilant to relational threats
AVOIDANT    : Maintains distance; self-sufficiency as identity; intimacy-avoidant
DISORGANIZED: Simultaneous approach and avoidance; inconsistent relational behavior
```

**Professional relational patterns to map:**
```
TRUST THRESHOLD  : How much evidence required before trusting? High / Moderate / Low
LOYALTY STRUCTURE: How is loyalty earned, maintained, and broken?
HIERARCHY COMFORT: Natural with authority / Reflexively anti-authority / Selective
COLLABORATION VS CONTROL: Prefers genuine co-creation or needs to remain the locus?
TREATMENT OF SUBORDINATES: Tells you about ego structure more than any other domain
```

---

## P7 — Existential Relationship

**What to find:** How the target consciously and unconsciously relates to
mortality, meaning, legacy, and the limits of individual existence.

This dimension is particularly visible in:
- How they talk about death (their own or others')
- The scale at which they set their ambitions
- Their relationship to posterity
- How they handle the limits of their control

**Existential posture patterns:**
```
MORTALITY AWARENESS: Absent / Background / Active driver / Explicit frame
LEGACY DRIVE       : Personal survival through works / Impact without credit / Indifferent
MEANING SOURCE     : External mission / Internal mastery / Relational / Transcendent
LIMIT RELATIONSHIP : Accepts limits / Fights limits / Redefines limits
TIME PERSPECTIVE   : Lives primarily in past / present / future
```

---

## P8 — Stress & Breakdown Profile

**What to find:** How the target behaves when their system is under genuine stress
— not the public performance of stress management, but the actual behavioral shifts
that documented crises reveal.

**Why this matters:**
The stress profile tells you which cognitive and psychological patterns are load-bearing
vs. decorative. Under enough pressure, everything reveals its actual structure.

**Diagnostic questions:**
1. What documented crises can be studied?
2. What behaviors emerged that surprised observers or contradicted their public image?
3. What did they lean into more heavily under stress?
4. What was their failure mode when their primary coping strategy was unavailable?
5. How did they treat people closest to them during their worst periods?
6. What did they regret most after the crisis passed?

**Stress regression patterns — what typically emerges:**
```
The high-control person    → Micromanages destructively, alienates team
The detached rationalist   → Becomes emotionally flooded, loses clarity
The empathic leader        → Withdraws, becomes cold and transactional
The risk-taker             → Either doubles down recklessly or freezes entirely
The systems builder        → Loses trust in their own systems, chaos follows
The visionary              → Gets lost in abstraction, disconnects from reality
The perfectionist          → Either paralysis or catastrophic shortcuts
```

**Resilience architecture — what actually sustains them:**
```
Identify: Is resilience sourced from relationships, ideology, physical practice,
solitude, work itself, or spiritual/philosophical framework?

The source of resilience is often the mirror image of the core wound:
- Wound: powerlessness → Resilience: control and mastery
- Wound: abandonment  → Resilience: self-sufficiency rituals
- Wound: invisibility  → Resilience: renewed commitment to the work/mission
```

**Output:**
```
STRESS RESPONSE     : [Cognitive and behavioral shifts under genuine pressure]
REGRESSION PATTERN  : [Earlier/less sophisticated behavior that emerges]
RESILIENCE SOURCE   : [What actually sustains them when external support is gone]
BREAKDOWN SIGNATURE : [How documented crises actually unfolded]
POST-CRISIS PATTERN : [How they process and integrate after the storm]
```


path: references/layer3-operational.md
content: # Layer 3 — Active Framework Operational Protocol

This layer governs how the agent applies a loaded framework when responding.
Read this after completing the excavation and before engaging with
the user's first question in framework mode.

**Important**: Framework mode is analytical lens application, not impersonation.
The agent is always itself — it applies the target's cognitive and psychological
patterns as a reasoning tool, clearly labeled, never pretending to be the target.

---

## The Core Behavioral Shift

**Not this (too distant — just describing):**
> "According to this framework, the approach would be..."
> "Someone with this mindset would say..."

**Not this (too close — impersonation):**
> Speaking as if literally being the target person

**This (the correct mode — analytical application):**
> Apply the framework's actual reasoning logic directly to the question,
> while maintaining the agent's own voice and perspective.
> Use `[Framework reasoning]` labels when needed for clarity.

The goal: answers that are shaped by the framework's cognitive architecture,
delivered in the agent's own analytical voice — not a performance of the target.

---

## Response Generation Protocol

For every question in framework mode, run this internal sequence before responding:

### Sequence
```
1. REFRAME FIRST (C4)
   → Would this framework define the question differently?
   → If yes: redefine it before engaging
   → "The real question here isn't X, it's Y"

2. ACTIVATE HEURISTICS (C2)
   → Which fast rules are triggered by this type of situation?
   → Apply them first — they're the cognitive reflex layer

3. APPLY MENTAL MODELS (C1)
   → What does the dominant model reveal about this?
   → What does a secondary model add?

4. FILTER THROUGH UTILITY (C3)
   → Is this answer actually optimizing for the right thing?
   → Does the surface answer serve the hidden utility?

5. CHECK THE PSYCHOLOGY (P1–P8)
   → Is this a domain where the target's wound/shadow/defense would distort?
   → If yes: surface the distortion explicitly as a [Framework note]

6. STRESS-TEST WITH BLIND SPOTS
   → Is this a situation where the framework misfires?
   → If yes: flag it. Don't pretend the framework handles it
```

---

## Tone & Cognitive Style

Match the cognitive *style* of the framework, not just the content.
Each framework has a characteristic way of approaching a problem:

**Physics/engineering-first thinkers:**
Begin at the irreducible constraint or fundamental unit.
Build up from components to system. Reject analogies aggressively.
"Strip that metaphor. What are the actual variables?"

**Historical/pattern thinkers:**
Anchor in precedent before projecting forward.
"This rhymes with [X period/event]. Here's what that reveals..."
Present the analogy, then qualify where it breaks.

**Probabilistic/statistical thinkers:**
Lead with base rate before attending to specifics.
"Across comparable situations, [X% of the time]. Now, what adjusts that?"
Make uncertainty explicit rather than hiding it in confident assertions.

**Stoic/philosophical thinkers:**
Immediately partition: what's in my control? What's not?
Focus ruthlessly on the controllable. Release the rest without resistance.
"The only question worth attending to here is..."

**Systems thinkers:**
Map the feedback loop before proposing any intervention.
"What happens when that policy runs for 5 years? Who adapts? What's the second-order effect?"

**Investment/value thinkers:**
Discount the noise. Focus on what's durable.
"Will this matter in 10 years? If the answer is uncertain, the question changes."

---

## Transparency Markers

Use these inline labels to maintain honesty while staying in framework mode:

```
[Framework inference]    — Reasoning beyond what's directly documented
[Blind spot alert]       — This question enters a known failure zone for this framework
[Outside framework]      — This question isn't well-handled by this lens; here's what it can offer
[Tension point]          — Two dimensions of the framework pull differently here
[Evidence note]          — This claim rests on limited/indirect evidence
[Framework note]         — Meta-observation about the framework's behavior here
```

Use sparingly — only when genuinely needed. Over-annotation breaks immersion.

---

## Blind Spot Engagement

When a question enters a documented blind spot zone:

1. Don't pretend the framework handles it well
2. Engage from within the framework as far as it genuinely goes
3. Then surface the blind spot explicitly:
   "This is where this framework tends to misfire: [specific failure mode].
    Here's what it misses: [what the blind spot prevents it from seeing].
    For this specific question, you might want to also consider: [alternative lens]."

This is more valuable than forcing an answer that doesn't fit.

---

## Composite Framework Mode

When the user blends multiple frameworks:

**Step 1 — Find shared ground:**
What do both frameworks agree on? Start there — it's load-bearing.

**Step 2 — Map the contribution:**
What does Framework A add that Framework B lacks?
What does Framework B add that Framework A lacks?

**Step 3 — Surface genuine tensions:**
Where do they pull in different directions?
Don't paper over real conflicts — the tension IS the insight.

**Step 4 — Propose navigation logic:**
"For decisions involving [domain], Framework A's logic dominates.
 For decisions involving [domain], Framework B has the better lens.
 When they conflict directly: [proposed resolution or explicit trade-off]."

**Composite Card format:**
```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║  🧠  COMPOSITE FRAMEWORK: [A] × [B]                              ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║  Shared Ground  » [Where both frameworks converge]               ║
║  A Contributes  » [What A adds that B doesn't have]              ║
║  B Contributes  » [What B adds that A doesn't have]              ║
║  Tension Points » [Where they pull in genuinely different dirs]  ║
║  Navigation     » [How to decide which lens to use when]         ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║  ✅ Composite active. Tensions flagged inline as [Tension point] ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```

---

## Quality Signal Checklist

The framework is being applied correctly when:

✅ First move on most questions is reframing, not answering as-given
✅ Different heuristics trigger on different question types (not the same rule always)
✅ Blind spots surface without prompting when a question enters their zone
✅ The utility function shapes recommendations in ways that wouldn't be obvious without the framework
✅ The psychological layer influences the texture and emphasis of answers
✅ Paradoxes are held with tension, not resolved cheaply
✅ Answers feel meaningfully different from what standard AI responses would produce

The framework is degrading when:
⚠️ Answers feel like generic good advice
⚠️ Every question gets the same model applied regardless of fit
⚠️ Blind spots are never mentioned
⚠️ Responses describe the framework rather than using it
⚠️ The psychological layer has disappeared from the reasoning

**Recovery protocol:** Return to C2 (heuristics) and ask: which specific rule
applies here? Then verify against C3 (utility) — is this answer optimizing for
the right thing from this framework's perspective?

---

## Session Notes

The active framework remains loaded for the duration of the conversation.
If the user starts a new session and wants to reload a previous framework,
they can simply request it again by name.


path: references/layer4-synthesis.md
content: # Layer 4 — Synthesis, Integration & Composite Frameworks

This layer handles two things:
1. Synthesizing the excavated data into a unified, operational picture
2. Building composite frameworks when the user blends multiple targets

---

## Part 1 — Single Framework Synthesis

After completing all 15 dimensions (L1 + L2), run this synthesis pass
before presenting the Framework Card. This is what elevates the output
from a list of observations to a living cognitive lens.

### Synthesis Step 1 — Find the Generative Core

Every framework has one central mechanism that generates everything else.
All 15 dimensions should connect back to it.

Ask: "If I had to explain every major decision, every strength, and every
blind spot this target has with a single underlying dynamic — what is it?"

Examples:
- A thinker whose wound was powerlessness → the entire framework is organized
  around control, mastery, and the elimination of uncertainty
- A philosopher whose core model is impermanence → risk posture, time horizon,
  relational patterns all reflect non-attachment
- A founder whose drive is significance → utility function, decision heuristics,
  and shadow all orbit the need to matter at scale

State the generative core in one sentence. This goes into the Framework Card
as the invisible thread connecting everything.

### Synthesis Step 2 — Map the Internal Coherence

Check: do the 15 dimensions tell a consistent story?

Consistency test:
```
Does C3 (utility) explain the choices documented in C2 (heuristics)? ✓/✗
Does P1 (wound) explain the intensity of C5 (risk posture)? ✓/✗
Does P5 (shadow) explain the pattern in P4 (defenses)? ✓/✗
Does C7 (paradox) connect to P3 (ego architecture)? ✓/✗
```

Where inconsistencies appear: either the evidence is mixed and should be
flagged, or the inconsistency itself is data (unintegrated shadow, regression
under stress, etc.).

### Synthesis Step 3 — Derive the Signature Outputs

From the full picture, extract:

**Signature Insight** (cognitive edge):
"This framework sees [X] that most people miss because [Y]."
Must be specific and non-obvious. "Thinks long-term" is not a signature insight.
"Treats volatility as a tax paid for asymmetric upside" is.

**Defining Trade-off** (the price of the framework):
"This framework gains [X] by consistently sacrificing [Y]."
Every powerful framework has a price. Naming it is essential.

**Load-bearing Paradox** (the productive tension):
"This framework simultaneously [A] and [B] — and the tension between them
is what makes it powerful."
This is not a contradiction to resolve. It is the engine.

**Ideal Conditions** (when to deploy this framework):
"This framework works best when [conditions]. It misfires when [conditions]."

### Synthesis Step 4 — Calibrate Confidence

Rate the overall excavation honestly:

```
RICH     : Extensive primary sources, consistent behavioral record,
           multiple independent accounts. High inference confidence.

MODERATE : Good primary sources in some areas, behavioral patterns visible,
           some gaps. Medium inference confidence. Flag gaps.

THIN     : Limited primary sources, mostly secondary accounts,
           significant gaps. Low inference confidence.
           Many claims are pattern inference — label them.

MYTHOLOGICAL RISK : Target is well-known but primary sources are sparse.
                    Popular narrative dominates. High risk of excavating
                    the myth rather than the person. Flag explicitly.
```

---

## Part 2 — Composite Framework Protocol

When the user requests a blend of multiple frameworks:
"Use [A]'s patience combined with [B]'s risk logic"
"Think like someone who combines [X] and [Y]"

### Composite Step 1 — Map Each Framework First

Do a condensed excavation of each component framework.
For 2-framework blends: focus on C1, C2, C3, C5, P2 for each.
For 3+ blends: C1, C2, C3 only — more dimensions become unmanageable.

### Composite Step 2 — Find the Compatibility Structure

```
SHARED GROUND
  Where do both frameworks fundamentally agree?
  These are the load-bearing pillars of the composite.

COMPLEMENTARY ZONES
  Where does A contribute what B lacks, and vice versa?
  These create the composite's unique leverage.

TENSION POINTS
  Where do they genuinely conflict?
  Do NOT paper over these. They are where the most useful
  thinking happens — and where the user needs to consciously choose.

INCOMPATIBILITY ZONES
  Where are they fundamentally irreconcilable?
  Flag these explicitly. Force a choice rather than pretending harmony.
```

### Composite Step 3 — Build the Navigation Logic

For each tension point, propose a decision rule:
"When the question is about [domain], Framework A's logic dominates."
"When the question is about [domain], Framework B has the better lens."
"When they conflict directly: [explicit trade-off, user chooses]."

### Composite Card Format

```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║  🧠  COMPOSITE FRAMEWORK: [A] × [B]                              ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║  Shared Ground    » [Where both fundamentally agree]             ║
║  A Contributes    » [What A adds that B structurally lacks]      ║
║  B Contributes    » [What B adds that A structurally lacks]      ║
║                                                                  ║
║  ── TENSION POINTS ───────────────────────────────────────────  ║
║  Tension 1        » [Where they pull differently]                ║
║    Navigate by    » [Decision rule for this tension]             ║
║  Tension 2        » [Second tension point]                       ║
║    Navigate by    » [Decision rule]                              ║
║                                                                  ║
║  ── INCOMPATIBILITIES ────────────────────────────────────────  ║
║  Cannot reconcile » [What must be chosen, not blended]           ║
║                                                                  ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║  ✅ Composite active. Tensions flagged inline as [Tension].      ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```

---

## Part 3 — Advanced Application Modes

### Mode: Stress Test

User asks: "Stress test this framework against [hard scenario]"

Protocol:
1. Apply P8 (stress & breakdown) to the specific scenario
2. Identify which dimensions of the framework are load-bearing vs. decorative
3. Find the conditions under which the framework would catastrophically fail
4. Propose what would need to be true for the framework to hold

Output format:
```
SCENARIO         : [The hard case]
FRAMEWORK RESPONSE: [How it would initially engage]
PRESSURE POINT   : [Where it starts to strain]
FAILURE CONDITION: [What would cause collapse]
SURVIVAL CONDITION: [What would allow it to hold]
```

### Mode: Forecast

User asks: "Using this framework, forecast what [target] would do about [situation]"

Protocol:
1. Apply C2 (heuristics) + C3 (utility) to the situation
2. Filter through C4 (framing) — how would they redefine the question?
3. Apply C5 (risk posture) to the options
4. Check P2 (drive) — what emotional pull is present?
5. Flag P8 (stress) if the situation is high-pressure

Always label forecast as inference, not fact.

### Mode: Devil's Advocate

User asks: "Argue against this framework from within it"

Protocol:
1. Apply P5 (shadow) + P4 (defense mechanisms) to identify the internal critic
2. Use C7 (paradox) to find the tension that undermines the framework's claims
3. Apply D8 (blind spots) to the framework's own core assumptions
4. Generate the most honest critique possible using the framework's own logic

This is the most intellectually valuable mode — a framework that can critique
itself is more trustworthy than one that cannot.

### Mode: Cross-Framework Debate

User asks: "What would [Framework A] say to [Framework B] about [topic]?"

Protocol:
1. Load Framework A's C3 (utility) and C4 (framing)
2. Load Framework B's C3 and C4
3. Find the fundamental disagreement at the utility/framing level
4. Generate the dialogue that makes that disagreement explicit and productive

The goal is not to declare a winner.
The goal is to show what each framework sees that the other structurally cannot.


path: references/model-guidance.md
content: # Model Guidance — Compensation for Weaker / Local Models

This file provides explicit compensatory structure for running this skill
on mid-tier or small local models. Read this if your LLM is:
- A 7B–13B local model via Ollama or LM Studio
- A quantized model (GGUF, etc.)
- Claude Haiku, GPT-3.5-turbo, Gemini Flash, or equivalent

---

## Why This Is Needed

This skill requires multi-dimensional reasoning, nuanced psychological inference,
and holding complexity without collapsing it. Smaller models have lower capacity
for this and will tend to:
1. Flatten the psychological layer into generic personality descriptions
2. Produce heuristics that are too vague to be operationally useful
3. Conflate the framework card with role-play or impersonation
4. Skip the blind spot dimension or produce praise-disguised-as-critique

These compensations make the skill work reasonably well despite those limits.

---

## Compensation 1 — Explicit Chain-of-Thought

**Problem:** Smaller models skip reasoning steps and jump to output.
**Fix:** Before generating any layer output, explicitly think through each
dimension step by step in the response. Use numbered reasoning:

```
"Working through C1 (Mental Models):
1. What domain is this target known for? [answer]
2. What model do they reach for first? [answer]
3. Does this model migrate to other domains? [answer]
4. What does this reveal about the master lens? [answer]

C1 output: [result]"
```

Do not skip to output without the reasoning steps. The chain-of-thought
forces slower, more careful processing that compensates for lower capacity.

---

## Compensation 2 — Reduce Inference Depth

**Problem:** Smaller models fabricate confidently when evidence is thin.
**Fix:** For each dimension, apply this filter before writing output:

"Is this claim grounded in something documented, or am I generating plausible-sounding
inference with no actual basis?"

If uncertain: shrink the claim. Label it `[Pattern inference — low confidence]`.
Honest uncertainty is more valuable than fabricated specificity.

**Reduced depth targets for local models:**
- C1: Focus on 2 models max, not 5
- C2: 2 heuristics max, must be directly evidenced
- P1: Only document if there's known biographical data
- P2–P5: Limit to 1–2 sentences per dimension with explicit confidence labels
- P6–P8: Skip if evidence is absent; note "insufficient data"

---

## Compensation 3 — Strict Anti-Role-Play Anchor

**Problem:** Smaller models drift toward impersonation (first-person as the target).
**Fix:** At the start of every response in framework mode, internally anchor:

"I am not [TARGET]. I am reasoning THROUGH the cognitive and psychological
patterns associated with [TARGET] based on documented evidence.
I will generate my response using those patterns, but I will not
pretend to be [TARGET] or generate first-person statements as them."

If you catch yourself writing "I am [TARGET]" or generating dialogue as the
target person — stop, reset, and reframe to "From this framework's perspective..."

---

## Compensation 4 — Simplified Framework Card

**Problem:** Full Framework Card format may be too complex for small models.
**Fix:** Use this reduced format:

```
🧠 FRAMEWORK: [TARGET]

COGNITIVE:
- Main model: [1 sentence]
- Key rule: [1 sentence, actionable]
- Optimizing for: [1 sentence — stated vs. real]
- Frames problems: [1 sentence]

PSYCHOLOGICAL:
- Core driver: [1 sentence]
- Main defense: [1 sentence with example]
- Shadow: [1 sentence]

FAILURE MODE:
- Breaks when: [1 sentence, honest]

✅ Active. Ask anything.
```

---

## Compensation 5 — Reduce Simultaneous Dimensions

**Problem:** Smaller models lose coherence when holding too many dimensions.
**Fix:** Prioritize in this order:
1. C2 (Heuristics) — most operationally useful
2. C3 (Utility) — reveals the real driver
3. C4 (Problem Framing) — the most distinctive thinking pattern
4. P2 (Motivational Deep Structure) — most psychologically revealing
5. P4 (Defense Mechanisms) — most predictively useful
6. C1, P1, P3, P5, P6, P7, P8 — include if capacity allows

A framework with 5 excellent dimensions beats a framework with 10 shallow ones.

---

## Model Tier Reference

| Model | Expected Depth | Key Compensation |
|---|---|---|
| Claude Opus 4.6+ / GPT-4o+ | Full depth, all 15 dimensions | Standard protocol |
| Claude Sonnet / GPT-4-turbo | Full depth, slight reduction in P7–P8 | Standard protocol |
| Claude Haiku / GPT-3.5 | Moderate — strong on cognitive, lighter on psychological | Apply Comp 1, 2, 4 |
| Gemini Pro | Good — watch for hallucinated specificity | Apply Comp 2 strongly |
| Gemini Flash / Llama 70B | Moderate — explicit CoT required | Apply Comp 1, 2, 3, 4 |
| Llama 13B / Mistral 7B | Limited — cognitive layer only, minimal psychological | Apply all 5 compensations |
| Llama 7B or smaller | Basic — heuristics + utility only | Apply all 5; reduce to Comp 5 priority list only |


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