Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

falsification-first

Refute-before-prove research discipline: automated counterexample sweeps before any formalization, meter-integrity audits for information-bound experiments, mutation-tested model checkers, pre-registered commit-or-cut gates for speculative directions, wrong-turn reporting, and numeric-claim provenance. Use when validating any new theorem, bound, equilibrium, or security claim; when building or trusting a checker, simulator, or experiment; or when deciding whether a speculative research direction lives or dies. NOT for exploratory brainstorming, product prioritization, writing style, or literature review.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (4)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md205 B
  • references/protocols.md4.5 KB
  • scripts/sweep.py1.7 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Falsification-First: Refute Before You Prove

Every claim earns formalization by surviving an attack; every checker earns trust by catching seeded bugs; every speculative direction lives or dies by a gate registered before the experiment runs.

When to Use

✅ Use for: a new theorem/bound/equilibrium claim about to be formalized; any simulation or experiment testing a theoretical limit; building or reviewing a model checker, invariant suite, or security verifier; a speculative direction needing a live-or-die decision; auditing why an experiment "beat" a known bound. ❌ NOT for: open-ended brainstorming (gates would strangle it), product/roadmap prioritization, exposition mechanics (harbor-exposition), or pure literature surveys.

Core Process

flowchart TD
  A[New claim] --> B[1. SWEEP: automated counterexample search\nSMT/solver/randomized parameter sweep\nbefore any proof effort]
  B -->|counterexample| X[Claim false as stated:\nrecord it, restate or kill]
  B -->|survives| C{Speculative direction?}
  C -->|yes| D[2. GATE: pre-register commit-or-cut\ncriteria BEFORE running the experiment]
  C -->|no| E
  D --> E[3. PROVE: formalize\nLean/Isabelle/hand, per claim type]
  E --> F[4. MUTATION-TEST the checker:\nseed each known bug class,\ndemand a counterexample for each]
  F -->|any mutation survives| Y[Checker blind spot: fix checker,\nnot the claim]
  F -->|all caught| G[5. EXPOSE with boundaries:\nregime stated, numbers tagged\nverified vs internal, wrong turns reported]

The five obligations (short form; protocols in references)

  1. Sweep first. Randomized/solver counterexample search over the parameter space before proving. This mechanically catches what hand review catches late (a non-PD payoff matrix, a wrong discount threshold).
  2. Gate speculation. Write the cut condition before the run: "CUT if every detection is also caught by the cheap baseline." A gate that can only confirm is not a gate.
  3. Audit the meter. For any experiment against an information/impossibility bound: enumerate every channel by which the answer could reach the decision, and price each. Apparent bound-beating = unpriced side channel until proven otherwise.
  4. Mutation-test checkers. A green checker is unvalidated. Seed one bug per invariant/guard; demand a (shortest) counterexample per seed; ship the suite as the checker's certificate.
  5. Report wrong turns. Failed formulations locate boundaries — file them next to the success with what each taught. Tag every number [verified] or [internal, script+seed].

Anti-Patterns

Prove First

Novice: "Formalize the elegant claim, then test it." Expert: Sweep first. Three independent reviews and a solver each caught the same false-as-stated theorems that months of prose had blessed (non-PD stage game; identity theorem's 10/2/0 counterexample). Proof effort spent on a false statement is pure loss. Detection: Lean/Isabelle files exist for a claim no script has attacked.

The Unvalidated Green Checker

Novice: "All invariants pass — we're safe." Expert: Passing proves nothing until seeded violations fail. Every guard must be shown core (harbor-results L3 lesson 5: five guards, five shortest crimes). Detection: A checker repo with no mutation/negative-case suite.

The Confirming Gate

Novice: "We'll see if the experiment looks promising." Expert: Pre-register the numeric cut condition and the topology/regime it must win in. The sheaf direction survived only because its gate was written first — and its two failures were what located the real boundary (cycles, not cut edges). Detection: A "gate" with no falsifying outcome written down before the run.

Trusting the Refutation

Novice: "The experiment beat the bound — the theorem is wrong!" Expert: Audit the meter first. The floor's 8/14 "violations" were an oracle smuggling identity past a tie-breaking-only bit charge. Symmetric discipline: doubt apparent refutations of solid theory exactly as hard as apparent confirmations of your own claims. Detection: Celebration before a channel-by-channel accounting of what the decision procedure could see.

References

  • references/protocols.md — Load when executing any obligation: concrete checklists for sweeps (tool routing by claim type), meter-integrity audits, gate design, mutation-suite design, and the wrong-turn report format.

Scripts

  • python3 scripts/sweep.py --claim "rho*d*B >= G" --vars "rho=0:1,d=0.5:1,B=10:100,G=0:20" --trials 20000 — obligation 1 executable: randomized counterexample sweep over parameter boxes for any inequality claim (safe eval: min/max/abs/log/log2/exp/sqrt). Prints first counterexamples or "0 counterexamples in N trials"; exit 1 on any hit. Run before spending proof effort. Case-law suites for obligations 3–4 (meter audits, mutation tests) live as working code in harbor-results/scripts/.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

Apply cognitive task analysis to expert work that depends on perceptual cues, branching judgment, and recurring monitoring loops. Use when decomposing expert capability into agent structure, simulation design, or validation interviews. NOT for ordinary step-by-step SOP capture or simple pipelines with no tacit cue layer.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

curiositech/port-daddy3Updated Oct 18, 2026

See all skills by curiositech

Report a problem with this skill