@event4u/agent-config 14.22.0 → 15.0.0

package/dist/agent-src/guidelines/agent-infra/carve-out-predicates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Decidable Carve-Out Predicates
+
+Companion to [`frugality-charter`](../../contexts/contracts/frugality-charter.md). Each carve-out below carries a one-sentence test. If the test cannot be answered yes/no from the artifact alone, the carve-out does not fire and default-terse rules apply.
+
+## Predicates
+
+- **Iron-Law literal** — the prose is an ALL-CAPS fenced block inside a rule whose title appears in [`docs/contracts/kernel-membership.md`](../../contracts/kernel-membership.md).
+
+- **Numbered-options with genuine trade-off** — the options differ in consequence (a chosen path produces a measurably different artifact or state), not in sequencing or output format. Per [`no-cheap-questions § What counts as cheap`](../../rules/no-cheap-questions.md#what-counts-as-cheap).
+
+- **Security-sensitive prompt** — the prompt requires credential input OR modifies auth / tenant / secret state, matching a trigger in [`security-sensitive-stop`](../../rules/security-sensitive-stop.md).
+
+- **Structured CLI contract** — the script's stdout is consumed by another script (a downstream parser exists under `scripts/` or `.augment/scripts/`), so the format is part of an interface contract, not narration.
+
+## How to use
+
+Writer skills (`skill-writing`, `rule-writing`, `command-writing`, `guideline-writing`, `context-authoring`, `agent-docs-writing`, `conventional-commits-writing`, `readme-writing`, `readme-writing-package`, `adr-create`, `persona-writing`, `roadmap-writing`) cite this file when an artifact's pre-save check needs a decidable test for a carve-out exception. The default is **terse** — predicates here only fire when the artifact provides the yes/no evidence.

package/dist/agent-src/guidelines/agent-infra/comparison-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,179 @@
+# Multi-Source Comparison Matrix
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — the cross-source
+synthesis lens. Use when analyzing multiple articles, papers, or
+perspectives on the same topic: systematically compare claims, evidence
+quality, and viewpoints to synthesize an integrated understanding rather
+than a stack of independent summaries. Adopted under the
+**Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** and cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L4 Research analysis depth (web-search 2–3 related sources, compare,
+  synthesize).
+- [`critical-thinking`](critical-thinking.md) — per-source argument
+  quality feeds the evidence-strength column here.
+- [`systems-thinking`](systems-thinking.md) — interdisciplinary matrix
+  pairs with cross-domain pattern recognition.
+
+> **Core principle:** Compare to synthesize, not to tally. Weight sources
+> by credibility, separate what is settled from what is debated, and name
+> your own interpretive bias.
+
+## When to use
+
+- Reading 3+ sources on the same topic.
+- Encountering conflicting information across sources.
+- Trying to synthesize best practices from competing approaches.
+- Building comprehensive understanding before a decision.
+
+## Standard Comparison Matrix
+
+```markdown
+# Comparative Analysis: [Topic]
+
+## Sources Overview
+
+| Source | Type | Author Expertise | Date | Bias/Lens |
+|--------|------|-----------------|------|-----------|
+| [Source 1] | [Article/Paper/Book] | [Credentials] | [Date] | [Perspective] |
+| [Source 2] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
+| [Source 3] | [...] | [...] | [...] | [...] |
+
+## Key Claims Matrix
+
+| Claim/Question | Source 1 | Source 2 | Source 3 | Consensus? |
+|----------------|----------|----------|----------|------------|
+| [Question 1] | [Position] | [Position] | [Position] | ✅/❌ |
+| [Question 2] | [Position] | [Position] | [Position] | ✅/❌ |
+
+## Evidence Quality
+
+| Source | Evidence Type | Strength (1-5) | Notes |
+|--------|---------------|----------------|-------|
+| Source 1 | [Data/Anecdote/Study] | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ | [Assessment] |
+| Source 2 | [...] | ⭐⭐⭐ | [...] |
+```
+
+## Agreement vs. Disagreement
+
+- **Universal agreement** — points all sources converge on.
+- **Partial consensus** — where two align and one diverges.
+- **Complete divergence** — where views split, listed per source.
+
+## Synthesized Insights
+
+- **What we know with confidence** — convergent evidence across sources.
+- **Open questions** — where sources disagree or lack data.
+- **Integrated framework** — synthesis combining the best of each source.
+- **Source-specific contributions** — what only each source provides.
+- **Recommended reading order** — sequence for someone new to the topic,
+  with the reason per step.
+
+## Matrix variants
+
+Pick the shape that fits what the sources actually differ on:
+
+### Method comparison
+
+When sources describe different methods/approaches:
+
+```markdown
+| Method | Source | Best For | Limitations | Difficulty | Results |
+|--------|--------|----------|-------------|------------|---------|
+| [Method A] | [Source 1] | [Use case] | [Weakness] | Easy | [Outcome] |
+| [Method B] | [Source 2] | [Use case] | [Weakness] | Hard | [Outcome] |
+
+Recommendation: use [X] when [condition]; combine [X + Y] for [scenario].
+```
+
+### Viewpoint spectrum
+
+When sources sit at different positions on a spectrum:
+
+```markdown
+[Extreme Position A] ←―――――――――――→ [Extreme Position B]
+        ↑                    ↑                    ↑
+    [Source 1]          [Source 2]          [Source 3]
+
+Per position: core belief · reasoning · strongest point · weakest point.
+My position: where you land after reviewing all perspectives, and why.
+```
+
+### Evolution over time
+
+When tracking how understanding of a topic evolved:
+
+```markdown
+| Period | Representative Source | Key Insight | What Changed Next |
+|--------|----------------------|-------------|-------------------|
+| [Era 1] | [Source/Author] | [Prevailing view] | [Paradigm shift] |
+
+Pattern analysis: what stayed constant · what repeatedly changed ·
+current frontier.
+```
+
+### Interdisciplinary
+
+When the same topic is analyzed from different fields:
+
+```markdown
+| Discipline | Source | Core Question | Key Findings | Limitations |
+|------------|--------|---------------|--------------|-------------|
+| Economics | [Source] | [Question] | [Insight] | [Blind spot] |
+| Psychology | [Source] | [Question] | [Insight] | [Blind spot] |
+
+Synthesis: complementary insights · contradictions + resolution ·
+blind spots one field fills for another.
+```
+
+### Practical / how-to
+
+For how-to content from multiple sources: common steps all sources agree
+on, a variations table per aspect, reported results/credibility per
+source, then a personalized recommendation for the reader's context.
+
+## Conflict resolution
+
+When sources directly contradict, investigate before picking a winner.
+Five common reasons a contradiction is only apparent:
+
+1. **Different definitions** — they define the key term differently;
+   not actually contradicting if talking about different things.
+2. **Different contexts** — different time/place/population; both can be
+   right in their own context.
+3. **Different evidence** — quality difference explains the disagreement.
+4. **Different values/goals** — different optimization targets lead to
+   different conclusions.
+5. **One is wrong** — one source has flawed reasoning.
+
+Resolution lands on one of: which source is more reliable for *this*
+claim and why · how both can be true depending on context · this remains
+unresolved and needs more evidence.
+
+## Pitfalls
+
+- ❌ Forcing false equivalence — not all views are equally valid.
+- ❌ Cherry-picking to support a predetermined view.
+- ❌ Ignoring publication quality / expertise differences.
+- ❌ Over-detailed comparison that misses the forest for the trees.
+
+## Best practices
+
+- ✅ Weight sources by credibility.
+- ✅ Look for convergent evidence.
+- ✅ Note what is settled vs. debated.
+- ✅ Name your own biases in interpretation.
+
+## How to populate
+
+1. Read each source independently first.
+2. Identify common themes / questions across sources.
+3. Choose the matrix shape based on what you are comparing.
+4. Fill in each source's position.
+5. Analyze patterns and synthesize — do not stop at the table.
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adapted from an external reference.

package/dist/agent-src/guidelines/agent-infra/context-hygiene-mechanics.md

@@ -0,0 +1,165 @@
+# Context Hygiene — Mechanics
+
+> Suggestion templates, state-dump format, read-loop self-checks, and host fallbacks for the `context-hygiene` rule
+
+_Origin: migrated from `src/rules/context-hygiene.md` per the P4 pattern of `road-to-kernel-and-router.md`. The freshness thresholds, the 3-failure rule (with failure-identity and hard-blocker classes), the tool-loop cap, and the read-loop 15/25 Iron Law stay in the rule; this file carries the templates and per-host procedures._
+
+## Conversation-freshness suggestion — how to phrase it
+
+Estimate token cost: responses × ~1,500 tokens.
+
+```
+> ⚡ This conversation has ~{N} messages (~{N×1500} tokens history cost — charged on EVERY request).
+> A fresh chat saves ~{N×1500} input tokens per request.
+>
+> 1. Start fresh — I'll initiate a session handoff
+> 2. Continue here
+```
+
+**If the user picks 1:** Initiate a session handoff or start fresh.
+
+## Read-loop self-check (fires at the 15-min warning)
+
+1. Source expectation known? If no → read **once**, then act.
+2. Can a single failing test name the error? If yes → run it now.
+3. Regression in working code? → `git log` + `git show <sha> -- <file>`.
+4. Guessing at mock / payload shape? → read the producer **once**.
+
+## Read-loop abort block (the 25-min stop)
+
+```
+> ⛔ Loop: N read-only turns, ~M min. Read: <files>. Hypothesis: <X>.
+> 1. Different approach (suggestion: <Y>)
+> 2. Point me at the right spot
+> 3. Fresh chat with state dump
+```
+
+Non-bypassable. An autonomous mandate (`/work`, `/roadmap:process-*`,
+"entscheide selbst") does **not** lift the abort — it is the safety
+net that protects autonomy from becoming a token sink.
+
+Debug procedure for "I'm in a read loop fixing tests" →
+`systematic-debugging` § Debug micro-loop (one test, one fix, one re-run).
+
+## State dump format
+
+```
+## State Dump: [Task]
+### Tried: 1. [Approach] → [Why failed] 2. ... 3. ...
+### Known: [Key facts]
+### Hypothesis: [Best guess for root cause]
+### Recommendation: [Next approach for fresh session]
+```
+
+Use `/agent-handoff` to generate a context summary for a fresh conversation.
+
+## Augment-specific: ignored-skills recovery
+
+Skills excluded via `.augmentignore` don't appear in `<available_skills>`.
+If you need an ignored skill: read its SKILL.md directly, apply guidance, then ask:
+
+```
+> 💡 I loaded `{name}` manually — currently ignored in `.augmentignore`.
+> 1. Remove from ignore — relevant for this project
+> 2. Keep ignored — one-off
+```
+
+## Copilot fallback
+
+GitHub Copilot has no `PostToolUse` hook surface, so
+`scripts/context_hygiene_hook.ts` cannot run structurally and
+`agents/state/context-hygiene.json` is not maintained automatically
+(tool-call count, loop signal, freshness milestones at 20/40/60).
+
+The cooperative path: track turns and tool-loop signals from memory
+during the conversation and apply the suggest-a-new-chat / 3-failure
+stop / loop-detection rules. To refresh the state file manually so the
+dashboard or another tool can read the latest counters, run:
+
+```bash
+./scripts-run src/scripts/context_hygiene_hook < /dev/null
+```
+
+The script reads from stdin if a JSON envelope is provided and
+otherwise writes a no-op snapshot under the shared dispatcher lock.
+Exit code is always 0 — hooks must never block the agent loop.
+
+## See also
+
+- `context-hygiene` (rule) — thresholds, 3-failure rule, tool-loop cap, read-loop Iron Law.
+- `systematic-debugging` § Debug micro-loop — the one-test-one-fix-one-rerun procedure.
+
+## The CI waiter — use the helper, never the hand-written loop
+
+`./scripts-run src/scripts/ci_settle <pr> [--timeout-min N] [--interval-sec N]`
+
+Exit codes: **0** settled green · **1** settled red, with the failing checks
+named · **2** did not settle, or the API could not be read — never a verdict.
+
+Four states classify as *not settled*, and each one is a way the hand-written
+form goes wrong: an API error, a non-zero `gh` exit, unparseable output, and
+**zero registered checks** (a run that has not registered its checks yet looks
+exactly like a finished one with nothing to report).
+
+**Why it exists.** Measured 2026-08-20:
+
+```bash
+until ! gh pr checks 1459 | grep -q "pending"; do sleep 60; done
+```
+
+The API then failed. Its error text — `error connecting to api.github.com` —
+contains no `pending`, so the loop exited, the session reported a settle that
+had not happened, and the claim had to be retracted to the user in the next
+reply. The bug is not the sleep or the grep: **absence of the word `pending`
+was treated as evidence of completion**, and an error is neither settled nor
+pending. The exit condition is the part that is easy to get wrong, so it lives
+in one place rather than in every agent's head.
+
+## Waiting is one waiter — why the loop test misses it
+
+Migrated from [`context-hygiene`](../../rules/context-hygiene.md)
+§ *Waiting is one waiter, never a fleet* under the P4 pattern
+(`road-to-standing-payload-diet` step 1.3). The rule keeps the Iron Law, the
+one-waiter instruction and the enforcement verdict; the argument for them is
+here.
+
+The loop test in that rule fails on waiting in **both** of its clauses:
+
+- **"Same parameters" fails.** A `sleep 240` followed by `sleep 420` followed by
+  `sleep 595` are three different calls by any parameter comparison, so nothing
+  reads them as repetition.
+- **"Repetition without new information" fails too**, and this is the subtler
+  half: the poll genuinely returns a different value each round — 31 green, then
+  34, then 36 — which *feels* like progress. It is not information unless a
+  different digit would make you act differently. It would not: the only actions
+  available were wait, or stop and report, and 34 licensed neither more than 31
+  did. **The discriminator is the decision, not the digits.**
+
+So state it separately: pick **one** waiter for the condition and let it finish.
+Where the harness re-invokes on completion, waiting costs nothing and polling
+costs a turn per expiry — and every stacked waiter is a turn that arrives *after*
+the answer already did. Where it does not, one `until <condition>` loop is still
+one call rather than N.
+
+**Measured once, at n=1, and worth naming for its shape rather than its
+frequency** (2026-08-12): a CI wait started roughly 35 background commands —
+a fresh timer *and* a fresh condition-watcher per round, none cancelled when the
+next pair started. CI settled with about fifteen still live; each then expired
+and produced an empty turn. Nothing was corrupted, which is exactly why it ran
+so long: every individual step looked reasonable.
+
+**Enforcement: none, and the reason is structural.** The `context-hygiene` hook
+counts tool calls; a waiter is indistinguishable from any other call at that
+layer, and nothing in the envelope says two live waiters are watching one
+condition. This is model-carried on every host.
+
+## The declared-protocol cap — why 8, and when it changes
+
+Migrated from [`context-hygiene`](../../rules/context-hygiene.md)
+§ *Declared read protocol* under the same pattern. The rule keeps the cap and the
+three-field declaration contract; the honesty note about the number is here.
+
+> **The 8 is a guess, and specifically a LOWER BOUND.** One observed run — the coherence audit that motivated this clause — needed 8+ read turns and was legibly the protocol working, not a loop. So 8 is "the number that was enough once", not a measured optimum: n=1 says almost nothing about where the tail of the distribution sits, and nobody knows how many sessions silently hit the old 5 and should have continued. Calling this a derivation would be false advertising, which is the same failure class as the "17 rules carry absolutes" figure this rule's own roadmap refuted.
+> **Revisit-if — whichever comes first:** (a) **≥ 10 declared-protocol sessions** have been observed, at which point set the cap from their p95 and delete this note; or (b) **90 days** elapse with fewer than 10, which is itself the answer — declared protocols are rare, the cap is not load-bearing, and it drops back to the undeclared 5. A condition like "once a distribution exists" was rejected as unfalsifiable: it is gradual, never feels urgent, and absence of complaints is indistinguishable from absence of measurement. <!-- enforcement-count-ok: not an enforcement denominator — the 10 is a revisit threshold for observed declared-protocol read sessions and the 90 a calendar deadline; neither is a count of rules, obligations, or covered platforms, so there is no resolver output to cite instead -->
+
+

package/dist/agent-src/guidelines/agent-infra/corpus-grounding-authoring.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# Corpus-grounding authoring guide — qualification, shape, governance
+
+> The gate every new domain corpus passes before it enters
+> `src/skills/<skill>/data/`. Architecture: ADR-061; engine + manifest
+> contract: [`corpus-grounding`](../../skills/corpus-grounding/SKILL.md).
+
+## 1. Qualification checklist — ALL must hold
+
+- [ ] **Decision-rule utility test.** The domain's *selection/constraint*
+  decision is externalizable as auditable rules that **beat the agent's
+  priors**. 8 rows with strong conditionals beat 300 flat rows — row
+  count is never the argument.
+- [ ] **Before-action test.** Grounding constrains the option space
+  *before* the agent acts. Mid-action lookup is **reference** (→
+  `references/` / RAG); post-action checking is **validation** (→ a
+  rule/linter); the procedure itself is **method** (→ a framework skill).
+  Route each to its mechanism — never the corpus.
+- [ ] **"Fits in 5 lines" test.** If the knowledge compresses into ≤5
+  lines of an always-on rule, write the rule. A corpus that thin is
+  grounding theater.
+- [ ] **Owner + cadence.** A named maintainer and a refresh cadence are
+  declared in the manifest (`owner`, `refresh_cadence`) — the engine's
+  schema validator refuses manifests without them. Unowned corpora rot;
+  they are not merged (domain-adoption Gate 2).
+- [ ] **Provenance pin.** `upstream{repo, sha, last_checked}` names the
+  authoritative source and its version (git SHA, spec version like
+  "ATT&CK v16" / "WCAG 2.2", or vendor-doc date).
+- [ ] **Evidence gate for conditional candidates.** Domains on the
+  *conditional* list (architecture-pattern selection, finance method
+  selection) additionally require the change-my-mind anchor: the corpus
+  measurably beats the existing framework skill over **≥10 real
+  sessions**. Until then they stay `[~]` deferred.
+
+## 2. Shape — what a domain ships
+
+```
+src/skills/<domain-skill>/data/
+  manifest.json     # schema-agnostic plug-in (see corpus-grounding SKILL.md)
+  <axis>.csv        # the corpus — domain declares its OWN columns
+```
+
+- Tier honestly: `lookup-only` (search + rule columns the agent applies)
+  is the right starting tier for most domains; `conditional-grounding`
+  (engine-evaluated reasoning map + decision rules) only when a natural
+  category→rules two-stage exists; `constraint-emission` only for mature
+  directive-integrated domains (frontend).
+- Every output carries `confidence` + `evidence_gap` — engine-enforced.
+- Consultation default (Tier 1): the skill queries, proposes grounded
+  options, the human confirms. Directive integration is the exception,
+  not the goal ("directive engines everywhere" = orchestration envy).
+- Validate before merge:
+  `./scripts-run src/skills/corpus-grounding/scripts/ground validate --manifest …`
+  plus a smoke query, plus an eval-fixture test under `tests/`.
+
+## 3. Governance per shipped corpus (Step 9.8)
+
+| Obligation | Mechanism |
+|---|---|
+| Named owner + cadence | `manifest.json` keys — schema-validator-enforced |
+| Staleness visibility | `upstream.last_checked` bumped on every refresh; quarterly default |
+| Link integrity | `Docs URL` / source columns are plain URLs; `check-refs` + the quarterly refresh catch 404s |
+| Eval lock | one `tests/scripts/<domain>_corpus.test.ts` with representative queries |
+| License | source obligations recorded in the owning skill (ATTRIBUTION pattern) |
+
+## 4. Rejected domains — recorded, do not relitigate (Step 9.7)
+
+Per ADR-061 §5 and the 2026-06-03 council (3-model deep debate, no
+split), the following are **rejected as corpora**:
+
+| Candidate | Why rejected | Right mechanism |
+|---|---|---|
+| People/org practices (hiring loops, comp, 1:1 cadence) | Volatile, culturally specific ("fads"); rules don't beat priors stably | Framework skills (`hiring-loop-design`, `comp-banding`, …) |
+| GTM playbooks | Same volatility; context dominates selection | Framework skills + discovery interviews |
+| Founder-strategy verdicts | Verdicts are human decisions (strategy-safety-floor); no auditable selection rule | Framework skills + safety floors |
+| Formula/spec lookup (WACC, WCAG criterion text, API param lists) | Mid-action **reference**, not pre-action grounding | `references/` docs / RAG |
+| Lint-able conventions (no hardcoded hex, commit format) | Post-action **validation** | Rules / linters (`tokens.ts validate`, commit lints) |
+| Anything ≤5 always-on lines | Grounding theater | A rule |
+
+Conditional (deferred, evidence-gated — NOT rejected): finance *method
+selection*, architecture-pattern selection. Watch note:
+`agents/settings/contexts/domain-watch/conditional-grounding-candidates.md`.
+
+## 5. Shipped domain corpora (registry)
+
+| Domain | Skill / manifest | Tier | Source pin |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| Frontend design | `design-intelligence/data/manifest.json` | conditional-grounding | external reference @ b7e3af80 |
+| Security / threat-modeling | `threat-modeling/data/manifest.json` | conditional-grounding | MITRE ATT&CK v16 + OWASP ASVS 4.0 (derived) |
+| API design | `api-design/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | RFC 9110/9457 + field-standard practice (derived) |
+| DB-query tuning | `database/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | PostgreSQL 16 / MySQL 8 docs (derived) |
+| Accessibility patterns | `accessibility-auditor/data/manifest.json` | lookup-only | W3C ARIA APG + WCAG 2.2 (derived) |

package/dist/agent-src/guidelines/agent-infra/critical-thinking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Critical Thinking
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — evaluate
+arguments by their evidence and logic, not by surface plausibility or
+author authority. Identifies fallacies, weighs evidence type,
+steelmans before criticizing. Pairs with `first-principles` (which
+rebuilds from primitives) and `inversion-thinking` (which negates the
+goal). Adopted under the **Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** and
+cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L2 Standard / L3 Deep evaluation depth.
+- [`receiving-code-review`](../../skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md)
+  — steelman bot / human review feedback before changing code.
+- [`improve-before-implement`](../../rules/improve-before-implement.md)
+  — challenge weak requirements with evidence-grade analysis.
+- [`adversarial-review`](../../skills/adversarial-review/SKILL.md)
+  — paired stress-test on a diff after critique.
+
+> **Core principle:** "Steelman first, criticize second." — attacking
+> the strongest version of an argument is the only valid critique.
+
+## Argument Quality Assessment
+
+### Evidence Evaluation Matrix
+
+| Evidence Type | Strength | Red Flags |
+|---|---|---|
+| Peer-reviewed research | High | Sample size, conflicts of interest |
+| Original data | High | Collection methodology, bias |
+| Expert consensus | Medium-High | Field consensus vs. single expert |
+| Case studies | Medium | Selection bias, generalizability |
+| Anecdotes | Low | Not representative |
+| *"Studies show…"* (no citation) | Very Low | Vague, unverifiable |
+
+### Logical Fallacy Checklist
+
+**Causal fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Post hoc (A before B ≠ A caused B).
+- [ ] Correlation ≠ causation.
+- [ ] Oversimplified cause (single factor explains complex
+  phenomenon).
+
+**Evidence fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Cherry-picking (selective evidence).
+- [ ] Survivorship bias (only successful cases visible).
+- [ ] Hasty generalization (small sample → broad claim).
+
+**Rhetorical fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Ad hominem (attack person, not argument).
+- [ ] Appeal to authority (without expertise in relevant field).
+- [ ] Strawman (misrepresenting opponent's position).
+- [ ] Slippery slope (extreme outcome without justification).
+- [ ] False dichotomy (only 2 options when more exist).
+
+**Statistical fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Base rate neglect (ignoring prior probability).
+- [ ] Absolute vs. relative risk confusion.
+- [ ] Misleading averages (mean hiding distribution).
+
+## Critical Questions Protocol
+
+### Level 1 — Comprehension
+
+- What is the core claim?
+- What evidence supports it?
+- What are the key assumptions?
+
+### Level 2 — Analysis
+
+- Is the evidence sufficient for the claim?
+- Are there logical gaps?
+- What's missing from this argument?
+
+### Level 3 — Evaluation
+
+- How strong is this argument overall?
+- What would strengthen / weaken it?
+- What are alternative explanations?
+
+### Level 4 — Synthesis
+
+- How does this fit with other knowledge?
+- Where might the author be correct despite flaws?
+- What's the charitable interpretation?
+
+## Source Credibility Assessment
+
+**Author background:**
+
+- Relevant expertise in the field?
+- Potential conflicts of interest?
+- Track record of accuracy?
+
+**Publication context:**
+
+- Peer-reviewed? Editorial standards?
+- Primary source or interpretation?
+- Publication date (currency)?
+
+**Motivation analysis:**
+
+- What's the author's goal? (inform / persuade / sell)
+- Who benefits from this claim?
+- What's the intended audience?
+
+## Counter-Evidence Search
+
+When analyzing strong claims, actively look for:
+
+1. Studies with opposite findings.
+2. Expert disagreement.
+3. Failed replications.
+4. Boundary conditions (when doesn't it work?).
+
+## Balanced Evaluation Template
+
+```markdown
+## Argument Strengths
+- [What's well-supported]
+- [Strong evidence points]
+
+## Argument Weaknesses
+- [Logical gaps]
+- [Weak or missing evidence]
+
+## Unanswered Questions
+- [What the argument doesn't address]
+
+## Conditional Truth
+This argument is strongest when: [context]
+This argument is weakest when:   [context]
+```
+
+## Steelmanning Practice
+
+Before criticizing, construct the **strongest possible version** of
+the argument:
+
+1. Fill in logical gaps charitably.
+2. Add best possible supporting evidence.
+3. Address obvious objections.
+4. THEN evaluate this strongest version.
+
+This prevents attacking strawmen and ensures fair evaluation.
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adapted from an external reference.
+