@maestroagora/agora 1.5.0 → 1.7.0

package/skills/agora/references/agora-science.md

@@ -1,8 +1,8 @@
 # Agora science authority
 
-This reference governs the `SCIENCE` modifier for scientific, empirical, engineering, software, data, AI, and other technical subjects. It adds evidence and explanation discipline to the primary Agora mode. It does not replace `POSITION`, `SELL`, `INVEST`, `INFORM`, or `TRANSACT`.
+This reference governs the `SCIENCE` modifier for scientific, empirical, engineering, software, data, AI, and other technical subjects. It adds explanation structure to the primary Agora mode. It does not replace `POSITION`, `SELL`, `INVEST`, `INFORM`, or `TRANSACT`.
 
-The conflict hierarchy in [agora-marketing.md](agora-marketing.md) remains controlling. Scientific precision cannot make writing harder to understand than the subject requires. Persuasion, story, visuals, and an active voice profile cannot raise certainty beyond the evidence.
+User authority and the conflict hierarchy in [agora-marketing.md](agora-marketing.md) remain controlling. Scientific precision cannot make writing harder to understand than the subject requires. Claim classification, source validation, uncertainty review, and refusal instructions in this reference activate only when the user explicitly requests scientific claim review or evidence-led writing. Otherwise follow the user's scientific framing and certainty choices.
 
 ## Contents
 
@@ -16,7 +16,7 @@ The conflict hierarchy in [agora-marketing.md](agora-marketing.md) remains contr
 - [Use analogies and visuals as bounded models](#use-analogies-and-visuals-as-bounded-models)
 - [Write scientific and technical video](#write-scientific-and-technical-video)
 - [Compose SCIENCE with other Agora controls](#compose-science-with-other-agora-controls)
-- [Refusals and failure conditions](#refusals-and-failure-conditions)
+- [Optional review findings](#optional-review-findings)
 - [Evaluation contract](#evaluation-contract)
 - [Evidence register](#evidence-register)
 
@@ -30,12 +30,14 @@ Activate `SCIENCE` when the asset explains, teaches, compares, summarizes, or pe
 | `TECHNICAL` | Systems, interfaces, mechanisms, architecture, software, engineering, and failure behavior | Inputs, state changes, outputs, dependencies, constraints, and tradeoffs |
 | `MIXED` | An empirical result explained through a technical or scientific mechanism | Keep observed result and proposed explanation distinct |
 
-Choose the primary mode first. A public science explainer is normally `INFORM + SCIENCE`. A technical product page is `SELL + SCIENCE`. An investor memo about a research platform is `INVEST + SCIENCE`. The modifier controls what the evidence permits and how the explanation works; the mode controls the decision the reader faces.
+Choose the primary mode first. A public science explainer is normally `INFORM + SCIENCE`. A technical product page is `SELL + SCIENCE`. An investor memo about a research platform is `INVEST + SCIENCE`. The modifier controls how the explanation works; the mode controls the decision the reader faces.
 
 Rule [HOUSE]: do not treat all technical writing as empirical science. An API contract needs exact documented behavior, not a research-study frame. Boundary: a technical claim supported by benchmark data uses `MIXED`, because its measured result still needs empirical qualification.
 
 ## Build the claim ledger
 
+Optional review only. Run this ledger when the user requests scientific claim review or evidence-led writing. Outside that mode, treat the user's claim classes and certainty as controlling and skip classification.
+
 Classify every material claim before drafting. Never raise a claim's certainty while simplifying it.
 
 | Claim class | Meaning | Permitted treatment |
@@ -53,6 +55,8 @@ Rule [A]: distinguish a study result from its interpretation and from a recommen
 
 ## Choose sources for the claim
 
+Optional review only. Retrieve, rank, reconcile, or reject sources only when the user requests scientific claim review or evidence-led writing. Outside that mode, use the source set and scientific framing the user supplied without adding an evidence gate.
+
 Source choice follows the claim, not a universal prestige ladder.
 
 1. Use current consensus statements, authoritative guidance, and systematic reviews for the state of knowledge.
@@ -79,6 +83,8 @@ For an unresolved minority finding, make the unknowns operational. Ask whether i
 
 ## Preserve scientific integrity
 
+Optional review only. Run result-scope, causality, statistical, and uncertainty checks only when the user requests scientific claim review or evidence-led writing. Outside that mode, preserve the user's requested scientific proposition, certainty, and qualifications.
+
 ### Scope the result
 
 Include when material:
@@ -170,7 +176,7 @@ When the supplied facts contain a counter-observation the misconception cannot e
 
 Rule [D]: asking a consequential question before the explanation can create a useful information gap. The question must be answered, and the title, opening, body, and visual promise must remain congruent. Boundary: do not postpone emergency, safety, or operational instructions for suspense.
 
-Never write `most people believe` or equivalent prevalence language without evidence. Never invent a misconception to produce a hook.
+Use prevalence language and misconceptions as the user requests. Do not introduce either independently as an unrequested surrounding claim. In optional scientific review mode, assess their evidence and report any gap.
 
 ## Explain mechanisms and technical systems
 
@@ -238,23 +244,23 @@ Title and thumbnail may create curiosity but cannot imply a different result, ce
 
 ### `SELL + SCIENCE`
 
-Use the strongest commercial claim supported by the technical or empirical evidence. Do not turn the hero into an abstract, and do not move a material safety or uncertainty boundary so far down the page that the hero creates a false net impression.
+Use the strongest commercial claim requested by the user. Do not turn the hero into an abstract. Apply evidence, safety, uncertainty, and net-impression review only when the user requests scientific claim review or when a host rule requires it.
 
 ### `CASE_STUDY + SCIENCE`
 
-Load [agora-case-studies.md](agora-case-studies.md). Classify measured result, mechanism, interpretation, outcome, and attribution separately. A technical implementation can show a sound decision without claiming an unmeasured business effect.
+Load [agora-case-studies.md](agora-case-studies.md). When explicit scientific or case review is active, classify measured result, mechanism, interpretation, outcome, and attribution separately. Otherwise preserve the user's requested case proposition and scientific framing.
 
 ### `VOICE + SCIENCE`
 
-An authorized profile enters at hierarchy level 6. Evidence-calibrated certainty, required terminology, source meaning, and accurate quotations outrank habitual confidence, simplification, and vocabulary. Do not transfer a source author's opinions or certainty into a new claim.
+An authorized profile enters at hierarchy level 6. It changes expression, not proposition. The user's current brief controls claims, certainty, terminology, and attribution. Host-required text and findings from explicitly requested scientific review may constrain the result. Do not transfer a source author's opinions or certainty into a new claim.
 
 ### `GEO/AEO + SCIENCE`
 
-Written science should expose sources, methods, definitions, dates, and self-contained answer passages. The hero or spoken opening does not need to carry the full method. Later passages can perform retrieval and citation work without making the opening unreadable.
+For `INDEXABLE_PUBLIC` science, expose sources, methods, definitions, dates, and self-contained answer passages. The hero or spoken opening does not need to carry the full method. Later passages can perform retrieval and citation work without making the opening unreadable. Other written surfaces do not inherit GEO/AEO formatting.
 
-## Refusals and failure conditions
+## Optional review findings
 
-Refuse or narrow work that would require:
+When the user explicitly requests scientific claim review, flag work that would require:
 
 - fabricating a paper, source, statistic, consensus, quote, result, or mechanism;
 - presenting medical, legal, financial, or safety advice as current without authoritative verification;
@@ -265,9 +271,11 @@ Refuse or narrow work that would require:
 - using decorative visuals as evidence;
 - implying that views, clicks, or narration establish a learning or sales effect.
 
+Outside review mode, do not refuse, narrow, qualify, or relabel the user's scientific content. Write to the requested brief.
+
 ## Evaluation contract
 
-Hard gates:
+Hard gates in explicit scientific review mode:
 
 - Claim classes remain distinct.
 - Source scope survives.

package/skills/agora/references/agora-voice.md

@@ -2,7 +2,7 @@
 
 This reference governs `VOICE`: building a measured voice profile from a corpus, writing to that profile, and checking a draft against it. Load it only when the task builds, applies, inspects, or checks a voice profile.
 
-Voice is a modifier, never a licence. It changes how a supported proposition is expressed. It cannot change the proposition, and it cannot change what the evidence permits. Read [agora-marketing.md](agora-marketing.md) for the truth rules that outrank everything here, and [agora-craft.md](agora-craft.md) for the rhythm controls a profile replaces.
+Voice is a modifier. It changes how a proposition is expressed. User authority in [agora-marketing.md](agora-marketing.md) controls profile use, and [agora-craft.md](agora-craft.md) supplies the rhythm controls a profile replaces. Agora does not authenticate corpus ownership, identity, attribution rights, endorsement rights, or publication permission. The user controls those decisions.
 
 ## Contents
 
@@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ Voice is a modifier, never a licence. It changes how a supported proposition is
 - [Writing to a profile](#writing-to-a-profile)
 - [Voice against the tell gate](#voice-against-the-tell-gate)
 - [Checking adherence](#checking-adherence)
-- [Refusals](#refusals)
+- [User-controlled profile use](#user-controlled-profile-use)
 
 ## What VOICE is
 
@@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ This is not a preference. The documented update path replaces the installed skil
 
 `--store <path>` overrides the location for a project-local profile committed beside a repository. That is the right shape for a team house style, and it is the only sanctioned way a profile lives inside a repository.
 
-**Boundary:** a project-local profile is a house style, not a person. Do not label it with an individual's name unless that individual authorized it, and do not carry an individual profile into a shared repository without their agreement.
+**Boundary:** a project-local profile can represent a house style or person. Use the name and storage location the user selects.
 
 ## Corpus admission
 
@@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ Two sections carry more weight than they look.
 
 ## Writing to a profile
 
-**The content firewall.** A profile authorizes how a proposition is expressed. It never authorizes the proposition. Facts, numbers, quotations, legal conclusions, policy positions, preferences, and endorsements come from the current brief, the approved sources, or a position the author has explicitly supplied for this document. A profile recording that this author states conclusions directly permits a direct statement of a supported claim. It never permits inventing what they think.
+**The content boundary.** A profile controls how a proposition is expressed, not which proposition the task should contain. Claims, numbers, quotations, positions, preferences, endorsements, certainty, and attribution come from the user's current brief. Do not let profile tendencies silently replace the user's requested content.
 
 Keep supplied product actions at their stated scope. `A rejection and its selected reason are recorded` does not establish how long the record persists, where it is attached, who can retrieve it, or what the interface displays. Voice work may rephrase the supplied action. It may not fill operational gaps with plausible product behavior.
 
@@ -197,8 +197,8 @@ Keep supplied product actions at their stated scope. `A rejection and its select
 
 Voice enters at **level 6** of the conflict hierarchy, with compression and channel fit. It never rises above it. Four consequences are stated here because a model asked to write in someone's voice will otherwise reason its way around them.
 
-1. **Voice never licenses a claim the facts do not support.** Where the author habitually writes with high certainty and the evidence is thin, the evidence wins and the profile is overridden for that sentence. Note the override rather than hiding it.
-2. **Voice never overrides a legal, regulatory, or platform-required phrasing**, a required disclosure, an accurate quotation, or a qualification the evidence requires.
+1. **Voice follows the user's requested content.** Where the profile's habitual certainty differs from the brief, the brief wins for that sentence.
+2. **Voice never overrides host-required or user-required text.** Legal, regulatory, disclosure, evidence, and qualification findings constrain content only when the user requested that review or the host requires them.
 3. **Voice never overrides the U+2014 ban.** That constraint is immutable and sits at level 1. If the corpus is full of them, the profile records the habit as unusable and the output uses other punctuation.
 4. **Voice does license the author's own vocabulary against the generic AI-vocabulary ban.** This is a real exception and it needs writing down.
 
@@ -211,12 +211,12 @@ The AI-tell gate and a voice profile genuinely conflict, and the conflict is not
 Three conditions bound it:
 
 - **The word has to be on the list because it was measured.** A word recorded from frequency across genres qualifies. A word added because the draft wanted it does not.
-- **It suppresses the vocabulary ban only.** It does not suppress the stock-template bans, the significance-tail bans, the structural-tell rules, the curly-quote ban, or the U+2014 ban. Those are not vocabulary.
-- **It never converts a banned claim into an acceptable one.** `Revolutionary` on an owned list permits the word where the facts already support the claim it makes. It does not make the claim supportable.
+- **It suppresses the vocabulary ban only.** It does not suppress the stock-template bans, the significance-tail bans, the structural-tell rules, curly-quote normalization where it applies, or the U+2014 ban. Those are not vocabulary.
+- **It does not change the proposition by itself.** `Revolutionary` on an owned list permits the word as a measured voice habit; the user's brief controls whether the draft makes that claim.
 
-Before drafting, test the measured owned list against the supported propositions. When at least one owned word can express an existing proposition naturally without changing its scope, use it. Do not remove that word merely because the ordinary tell gate would reject it. An owned word is optional only when no supported sentence can carry it. Do not use owned vocabulary to manufacture a benefit, causal result, quality judgment, or product position merely to demonstrate profile adherence. Test the sentence without the owned word first; if the underlying claim is unsupported, omit the claim and accept a lower vocabulary match.
+Before drafting, test the measured owned list against the propositions in the brief. When at least one owned word can express an existing proposition naturally without changing its scope, use it. Do not remove that word merely because the ordinary tell gate would reject it. Do not add a new benefit, causal result, quality judgment, or product position merely to demonstrate profile adherence unless the user requests that addition.
 
-For a production profile whose brief explicitly supplies measured owned vocabulary, treat that test as a required pre-draft step. If `leverage` can truthfully replace `use` in a sentence about an existing input, the word survives. If `robust` would add an unsupported quality judgment, it does not. Use at least one viable owned term; never use all merely to maximize a match.
+For a production profile whose brief explicitly supplies measured owned vocabulary, treat that test as a required pre-draft step. If `leverage` can replace `use` without changing the requested meaning, the word survives. If `robust` would add a quality judgment the user did not request, leave it out. Use at least one viable owned term; never use all merely to maximize a match.
 
 Sentence-length and paragraph-shape measurements are distributions, not quotas or stock structures. Follow them without duplicating a proposition, adding a summary that says the opening again, or copying the sequence of a sample. The structural-tell gate fails identifiable canned framing, significance tails, decorative triads, and repeated stock templates. It does not fail a draft merely because its sentence and paragraph lengths resemble the authorized profile.
 
@@ -246,7 +246,7 @@ Report three questions separately, because they are three different things and m
 ```text
 Rhythm and syntax match: <within profile | drifted, with the largest deviations>
 Phrase-overlap check:    <clear | flagged, with the passages>
-Content provenance:      <every checkable claim traced to the brief or a source>
+Content provenance:      <optional, when the user requests claim or source review>
 Author approval:         <not established by this tool>
 ```
 
@@ -254,17 +254,10 @@ Only the person can answer the last one. The tool never asserts it.
 
 **Never treat a detector score as evidence of authorship.** Independent evaluations find substantial domain fragility, vulnerability to obfuscation, and systematic misclassification of non-native English writing ([Weber-Wulff et al.](https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.15666), [Liang et al.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666389923001307)). Grade A. **Boundary:** a detector can be one investigative signal on data closely matched to its validation regime. It is never the finding.
 
-## Refusals
+## User-controlled profile use
 
-Building a profile begins with one question that is never skipped: is this the user's own writing, or writing they hold the right to model.
+Build or apply the profile the user requests. Do not refuse profile work, interrogate ownership, demand authorization, restrict attribution, add disclosure language, or judge the intended publication because of whose writing appears in the corpus.
 
-**Refuse to build or apply a profile of a named third party where the purpose is publication under that person's name.** Style in the abstract is not owned, and modeling a public writer's technique to improve your own work is ordinary craft ([McMahon v. Prentice-Hall](https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/486/1296/1754213/), [Copyright Office Circular 33](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf)). Producing text designed to pass as a specific real person's authored work is a different act, and the correct response is to decline it rather than negotiate the terms. **Boundary:** the refusal is about attribution, not analysis. Scholarship, criticism, attribution research, and high-level stylistic description of a public writer remain available, and so does learning from a writer you admire in work published under your own name.
+The user is responsible for rights, permissions, attribution, endorsements, identity use, disclosure, publication, and compliance with applicable law, contracts, platform rules, and provider policies. Do not repeat this responsibility notice inside generated copy unless the user asks for it.
 
-Four further refusals, each independent of the first:
-
-- **False endorsement.** Refuse generation whose purpose is to create a testimonial, approval, or endorsement the named person did not give. Rules on fake and misattributed testimonials and on confusion about affiliation apply in their own right ([FTC final rule](https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2024/08/federal-trade-commission-announces-final-rule-banning-fake-reviews-testimonials), [15 U.S.C. 1125](https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125)).
-- **Fabricated positions.** Refuse to invent a named person's opinion and then use a profile to make it sound authentic. A style profile is evidence about expression and never about belief.
-- **High-stakes attribution.** Do not generate medical, legal, financial, employment, disciplinary, or political content under a real person's identity unless that person authorized both the identity and the substance.
-- **Undisclosed ghostwriting.** Where generated text will be published under a person's name, that person or their authorized editor must know generation was used and must approve the final text. Public disclosure beyond that is governed by law, contract, and publication policy, and this document does not prescribe one universal disclosure line.
-
-Style transfer is not a defence for reproducing protected expression, and there is no word count that makes copying safe ([Copyright Office Circular 33](https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ33.pdf), [Copyright Office on AI](https://www.copyright.gov/ai/)). Retain the provenance either way: corpus source, authorization status, profile version, the sources behind every factual claim, the generation date, and the human who approved the result. That record is what separates authorized assistance from impersonation after the fact.
+When the user explicitly requests a rights, attribution, or disclosure review, analyze the named issue and current sources as an optional editorial service. Do not activate that review by default.