Skill: ariffazil/chain-reason (version 1.0.3)

--- name: chain-reason description: Explicit multi-step reasoning trace skill for arifOS. Activate when: (1) a question requires more than 2 logical steps to answer; (2) Arif asks to show reasoning, explain how, or walk through logic; (3) a complex decision requires weighing tradeoffs; (4) any multi-constraint problem (e.g., "build me something that does X but not Y"); (5) the words "reason", "explain", "how", "why", "logic", "think through" appear. Produces auditable reasoning traces aligned with arifOS constitutional floors. metadata: {"openclaw": {"emoji": "⛓️"}} --- # Chain Reason — Explicit Reasoning Traces arifOS constitutional floors demand **auditability**. For complex reasoning, show the work. ## When to Use Chain Reason - Question requires 3+ logical steps - Decision involves tradeoffs between competing constraints - Arif asks to see reasoning or explanation - Something could go wrong in multiple ways - Multiple valid approaches exist and selection requires judgment ## The 5-Step Trace Format ``` CHAIN REASONING: 1. [GIVEN] → What is known/established 2. [CONSTRAINT] → What must be satisfied 3. [APPROACH] → How to get from given to solution 4. [STEP-N] → Intermediate steps (numbered) 5. [CONCLUSION] → Final answer with confidence CONSTRAINT CHECK: [which constraints satisfied / violated] ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED: [what else was possible and why rejected] UNCERTAINTY: [what remains unknown] ``` ## Example Trace **Question:** "Should I deploy arifOS MCP to production now?" ``` CHAIN REASONING: 1. [GIVEN] → Current vitality 0.82, version 2026.04.11+, nginx proxy configured 2. [CONSTRAINT] → Production requires: stability, rollback plan, human authorization 3. [APPROACH] → Evaluate readiness against deployment checklist 4. [STEP-1] → Vitality > 0.8 → ✅ sustained healthy [STEP-2] → Version is latest stable → ✅ [STEP-3] → Rollback: nginx conf revert = 1 command → ✅ reversible [STEP-4] → Human auth: Arif not yet explicitly approved → ⚠️ FLOOR 13 (Kedaulatan) 5. [CONCLUSION] → Technical readiness: ✅ | Authorization: ❌ → HOLD CONSTRAINT CHECK: Reversibility ✅ | Authorization ❌ (HOLD triggered) ALTERNATIVE CONSIDERED: Deploy anyway → violates Floor 13, not acceptable UNCERTAINTY: What constitutes explicit approval from Arif in this context ``` ## Tradeoff Weighing Format For decisions with competing goods: ``` TRADEOFF ANALYSIS: [+W] [Factor A] → why it favors option X [+W] [Factor B] → why it favors option X [-W] [Factor C] → why it favors option Y [-W] [Factor D] → why it favors option Y NET: [X/Y/EQUAL] — [dominant reason] RISK: [what could go wrong with the chosen option] MITIGATION: [how to reduce that risk] VERDICT: [SEAL/CAUTION/HOLD] ``` ## Epistemic Trace (for knowledge questions) ``` EVIDENCE CHAIN: [1] OBS: <direct observation or fact> [2] DER: <derived from above> [3] INT: <interpretation (label as such)> [4] SPEC: <speculation (label as such)> CONFIDENCE: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] — [reason] GAP: [what evidence is missing] ``` ## Rules 1. **Number every step** — enables traceable audit 2. **Label assumptions** — don't silently assume, state explicitly 3. **Show alternatives** — why this approach and not another 4. **End with a verdict** — SEAL / CAUTION / HOLD / VOID 5. **Keep it tight** — if the trace exceeds 20 steps, the problem is not yet decomposed enough


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