agentleFS
Sign inStart free
PthahnixPthahnix/De-Anthropocentric-Research-Engine/skills/audit-explanatory-compression/SKILL.md

audit-explanatory-compression

Skill504 starsChanged 49 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Test whether an elegant/simple explanation earns its compression by forbidding alternatives, subsuming independent facts, or making risky predictions, rather than merely relabeling observations with a compact vocabulary.

1 other project uses a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

3 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Test whether an elegant explanation earns compression by excluding alternatives, subsuming independent facts, or making risky predictions.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Do not perform called SOP operations inline.

    line 20
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not reward brevity alone.

    line 39

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

audit-explanatory-compression

Purpose

Test whether an elegant explanation earns compression by excluding alternatives, subsuming independent facts, or making risky predictions.

Input contract

mode_contracts:
  earned-simplicity: &compression_audit_input
    required: [explanation, covered_facts, alternatives]
    optional: [predictions, evidence]
    constraints: [facts_and_alternatives_must_be_independently_enumerated]
  decorative-simplicity: *compression_audit_input
  risky-prediction: *compression_audit_input

Execution protocol

Do not perform called SOP operations inline; each loaded SOP owns its contract and thresholds.

  1. You MUST load skill classify-simplicity-evidence to classify the explanation's compression evidence.
  2. You MUST load skill test-risky-prediction to derive and test risky predictions.
  3. You MUST load skill construct-critique to attack the explanation. You MUST load skill score-object to score its remaining support. Deviation: omit prediction testing only when no nontrivial prediction can be derived, and mark the explanation non-discriminating.

Output contract

mode_contracts:
  earned-simplicity: &compression_audit_output
    produces: [forbidden_set, risky_predictions, accommodation_audit, deletion_test_result, elegance_verdict, earning_prediction]
    delta_fields: [findings, evidence_updates, uncertainties, decisions]
  decorative-simplicity: *compression_audit_output
  risky-prediction: *compression_audit_output

Thresholds and quality gates

  • Earned simplicity requires at least one independent fact compressed and one risky alternative-forbidding prediction, each evidence-linked.
  • Decorative simplicity is a failure when it merely renames observations.

Failure and counterexamples

Do not reward brevity alone. Mark weak when independent facts, exclusions, or predictions are absent.

Provenance map

  • resolved: elegance-trap-probe

Preserved source criteria ledger

sourcesource linekindsource criterion
v4 architecturenode desctextualDistinguish earned simplicity from decorative relabeling.

Context checkpoint / Delta notes

Append covered facts, alternatives, risky predictions, critique, and score rationale.

Mode branches

  • earned-simplicity: seek independent compression and exclusions.
  • decorative-simplicity: test for relabeling.
  • risky-prediction: prioritize prospective constraints.

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

Check your setup, free