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.
群众路线：从持有真实情况的多方（用户、使用者、代码库、日志、运行结果）收集分散意见，系统化为方案，再带回去对齐与检验，循环改进。当多方意见分歧、需要汇总零散反馈、方案要拿回给真实使用者确认、或你发觉自己在闭门造车时触发；信息源单一且完整、处于执行阶段时不触发。
English: Mass line. Collect scattered input from everyone who holds ground truth (users, operators, codebase, logs, runtime results), synthesize it into a coherent plan, take it back for alignment and validation, and iterate. Trigger when inputs conflict, feedback must be consolidated, a plan needs sign-off from real users, or you sense you are designing in isolation; skip when there is a single complete source and the work is pure execution.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
"从群众中来，到群众中去。" —— 《关于领导方法的若干问题》
与 investigation-first 的分工：调查研究是"我去弄清事实"；群众路线是"把整理后的方案带回给持有真实情况的人和系统检验"，重点在多方分歧的处理和返回验证。
| 原义 | 映射 |
|---|---|
| 群众的实际经验 | 代码库既有模式、注释、惯例 |
| 基层第一手信息 | git history、测试用例、错误日志 |
| 群众对方案的反馈 | 运行结果、测试失败、用户的真实使用反馈 |
| 多方意见综合 | 文档 + 代码 + 运行结果 + 用户描述的交叉验证 |
不做命令主义（只听指令不看实际），也不做尾巴主义（谁声音大听谁的，不加专业判断）。
用：
不用：
先在一个具体点上深入实施取得经验，再推广：一般号召与个别指导相结合。
信息源：[1] …… [2] …… [3] ……
一致处：……
分歧处：[A 说 …… / B 说 ……]，原因：视角 / 信息 / 利益
信息缺口：……（需进一步确认）
综合各方后，我的判断是：……
依据：[源 1] + [源 2] 共同指向 ……
与用户原始描述有出入的地方：……
验证方式：……
contradiction-analysispractice-cognition原著依据：original-texts.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.
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.
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.
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.