スキル一覧に戻る
lhl

analyze

by lhl

1🍴 0📅 2026年1月25日
GitHubで見るManusで実行

SKILL.md


name: analyze description: "Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration."

Manual 3-Stage Analysis (Codex)

Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.

Invocation

$analyze <url>

Note: Codex reserves /... for built-in commands. Use $analyze instead.

Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use this for manual analysis when you want to review claims before registering them.

Prerequisites

Environment

Set REALITYCHECK_DATA to point to your data repository:

export REALITYCHECK_DATA=/path/to/realitycheck-data/data/realitycheck.lance

The PROJECT_ROOT is derived from this path - all analysis files go there.

Red Flags: Wrong Repository

IMPORTANT: Always write to the DATA repository, never to the framework repository.

If you see these directories, you're in the framework repo (wrong place for data):

  • scripts/
  • tests/
  • integrations/
  • methodology/

Stop and verify REALITYCHECK_DATA is set correctly.

Data Source of Truth

LanceDB is the source of truth, not YAML files.

  • Query sources: rc-db source get <id> or rc-db source list
  • Query claims: rc-db claim get <id> or rc-db claim list
  • Search: rc-db search "query"

Ignore YAML files like claims/registry.yaml or reference/sources.yaml - these are exports/legacy format.

Fetching Content

To retrieve and parse source content:

  • Primary: WebFetch for most URLs
  • Alternative: curl -L -sS "URL" | rc-html-extract - --format json
  • rc-html-extract returns structured {title, published, text, headings, word_count}

Methodology

Stage 1: Descriptive Analysis

  • Summarize the source neutrally
  • Extract key claims, predictions, and assumptions
  • Identify theoretical lineage (what traditions/thinkers it builds on)
  • Map argument structure (chain arguments, logical flow)
  • Note scope and domain (what does this attempt to explain?)
  • Define key terms with operational proxies

Stage 2: Evaluative Analysis

  • Assess internal coherence and logical consistency
  • Evaluate evidence quality using Evidence Hierarchy (E1-E6)
  • Verify key factual claims (especially crux claims)
  • Search for disconfirming evidence (5 min minimum)
  • Check for internal tensions/self-contradictions
  • Note persuasion techniques and rhetorical devices
  • Identify unstated assumptions and dependencies
  • Flag unfalsifiable claims

Stage 3: Dialectical Analysis

  • Steelman the strongest version of the argument
  • Identify strongest counterarguments and counterfactuals
  • Consider base rates and historical analogs
  • Map relationships to other theories (supporting/contradicting)
  • Synthesize: where does this fit in the broader landscape?

Evidence Hierarchy

Use this hierarchy to rate strength of evidential support for claims.

LevelStrengthDescriptionCredence Range
E1Strong EmpiricalSystematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments0.9-1.0
E2Moderate EmpiricalSingle peer-reviewed study, official statistics0.6-0.8
E3Strong TheoreticalExpert consensus, working papers, preprints0.5-0.7
E4Weak TheoreticalIndustry reports, credible journalism0.3-0.5
E5Opinion/ForecastPersonal observation, anecdote, expert opinion0.2-0.4
E6UnsupportedPure speculation, unfalsifiable claims0.0-0.2

Claim Types

TypeSymbolDefinition
Fact[F]Empirically verified, consensus reality
Theory[T]Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support
Hypothesis[H]Testable proposition, awaiting evidence
Prediction[P]Future-oriented claim with specified conditions
Assumption[A]Underlying premise (stated or unstated)
Counterfactual[C]Alternative scenario for comparison
Speculation[S]Unfalsifiable or untestable claim
Contradiction[X]Identified logical inconsistency

Output

Generate:

  1. Analysis document following the 3-stage methodology
  2. Extracted claims formatted for database registration

After analysis, register manually:

rc-db source add --id "..." --title "..." --type "..." --author "..." --year YYYY --url "..."
rc-db claim add --id "..." --text "..." --type "[F]" --domain "..." --evidence-level "E2" --credence 0.XX --source-ids "..."

Or use $check for fully automated analysis + registration.


  • $check
  • $extract

スコア

総合スコア

60/100

リポジトリの品質指標に基づく評価

SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20
LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10
説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10
人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15
最近の活動

3ヶ月以内に更新がある

0/10
フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5
Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5
言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5
タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

0/5

レビュー

💬

レビュー機能は近日公開予定です