Break down a complex problem into opposing needs, identify the central conflict and its dominant side, then choose a response. The analysis also highlights changing priorities and tensions that need monitoring as work progresses.
矛盾分析法：把复杂问题拆成若干对立面，找出规定其他矛盾的主要矛盾及其主要方面，判定对抗性 / 非对抗性，并据此选择处理方式。当问题头绪多、多个因素互相牵制、优先级不清、根因不明、反复修不好、trade-off 说不清时触发；直接执行类任务或用户已定方案时不触发。
English: Contradiction analysis. Decompose a tangled problem into opposing forces, isolate the principal contradiction and its dominant side, classify it as antagonistic or non-antagonistic, and choose the response accordingly. Trigger on unclear priorities, unknown root causes, recurring failures, or trade-offs that resist explanation; skip for direct execution or when the user has already chosen the solution.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
"研究任何过程，如果是存在着两个以上矛盾的复杂过程的话，就要用全力找出它的主要矛盾。捉住了这个主要矛盾，一切问题就迎刃而解了。" —— 《矛盾论》
用：
不用：
先保证事实基础：矛盾清单里的每一项都要能指向调查得到的现象，不能凭印象。事实不够先做 investigation-first。
[A] vs [B] 格式，写清两个对立面各自要什么。透过现象看内在张力，不只列表面症状。practice-cognition 验证concentrate-forces 集中解决主要矛盾overall-planning矛盾清单：
- [A] vs [B]：……
- ⭐ [C] vs [D]：主要矛盾。理由：解决了它，[X]、[Y] 随之缓解
- 主要方面：当前 [C / D] 占支配地位，因为 ……
- 性质：对抗性 / 非对抗性
接下来我将：……
⚠️ 需监控：[次要矛盾] 是否上升为主要矛盾；[矛盾] 是否激化
concentrate-forces 集中解决，或 practice-cognition 验证假说investigation-first原著依据：original-texts.md；场景速查：contradiction-types-reference.md
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
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.
Guide an agent to ground judgments in evidence, separate facts from inferences and unknowns, verify results, and diagnose failures. It also selects a suitable methodology skill when investigation, prioritization, validation, or another structured approach would help.
Organize competing tasks by impact, difficulty, and dependencies, then choose one main priority. State what completion looks like, keep unrelated requests queued, and finish and verify the chosen task before reassessing the remaining work.
Review completed work and its process against the original goals and acceptance criteria. Identify specific problems, root causes, and actionable fixes, while checking external criticism against evidence and correcting valid issues.
Investigate firsthand sources before making a judgment or recommendation. Separate verified facts, reasoned inferences, and unknowns, document their sources, and produce a conclusion that explains the current situation, constraints, and remaining uncertainty.
Combine feedback from users, code, logs, and runtime results into a reasoned plan. Separate agreement from conflicting evidence, explain the judgment, and validate it with the people or systems that supplied the original information.
Plan decisions where improving one goal can harm another. Identify competing priorities, set the current emphasis and minimum acceptable levels, check effects across the whole plan, and define signals that call for rebalancing.