本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

answer-plausibility-checker

当算完、估完、拟合完或模拟完,拿到一个数值结果、要决定信不信时使用。按单位、符号、量级、极限行为、与参考值对比、守恒量收支六项过一遍嗅觉测试。对没有标准答案的科研与建模结果,改用「数量级 + 守恒总量核算」双锚点,不假装知道真值。

引用的参考值必须带来源与查阅日期。

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(3)

  • SKILL.md9.5 KB
  • references/reference-values.md2.0 KB
  • scripts/check_plausibility.py14.4 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Answer Plausibility Checker

Purpose

Audit a candidate physical result before trusting it. This skill is a screen, not a proof: passing the checks does not establish that a derivation or experiment is correct, while one well-founded failure is enough to reopen the work.

Inputs

Ask only for missing information that can change the verdict:

  • candidate value, uncertainty, and unit;
  • quantity being estimated and the system/context;
  • relevant input scales and assumptions;
  • an expected range or comparison value, with source and date when available;
  • applicable limiting cases;
  • for an open-ended model or experiment, conserved totals and their initial/final or input/output values.

Do not invent missing units, reference values, uncertainties, or conservation terms. Mark unavailable checks not run.

Workflow

1. Restate the claim

Normalize the result as:

quantity = value ± uncertainty unit
conditions = ...
source = calculation | estimate | fit | simulation | measurement

Keep measured, assumed, and derived values distinct.

2. Run independent checks

Use as many independent anchors as the evidence permits.

  1. Units and dimensions

    • Confirm that the stated unit matches the requested physical quantity.
    • Check dimensions in the final expression when the expression is available.
    • A dimensionally correct answer can still be physically wrong; never stop here.
  2. Sign and domain

    • Check required bounds: mass and absolute temperature are nonnegative; a probability lies in [0,1]; speed is below the applicable model limit; geometry obeys its domain.
    • Distinguish signed components from magnitudes. A negative component may be valid.
  3. Order of magnitude

    • Compare the result with a justified scale from the problem, a transparent Fermi estimate, or a sourced reference value.
    • Report the ratio and base-10 order gap. Do not call a difference “huge” without quantifying it.
    • Treat reference tables as prompts to verify, not timeless authority. Follow references/reference-values.md.
  4. Limiting behavior

    • Vary one controlling parameter toward a meaningful small, large, zero, symmetry, or known-special-case limit.
    • State the expected physical behavior before comparing it with the candidate formula.
    • If symbolic limit evaluation or series expansion is the main task, hand off to limiting-case-validator.
  5. Conservation or balance

    • For energy, momentum, charge, mass, particle number, or another applicable total, write a complete balance:

      initial + inflow + generation = final + outflow + dissipation
      
    • Never label a total “not conserved” until exchanges with the environment and source/sink terms have been considered.

    • For research or modeling work without a standard answer, require both an order-of-magnitude anchor and at least one applicable balance anchor. If no conserved total applies, explain why and substitute another independent physical constraint.

  6. Uncertainty compatibility

    • When uncertainties are available, judge compatibility with a stated statistical rule—not central values alone. Default rule: with standard uncertainties (coverage factor k=1) u and u_ref, compute z = |value − reference| / sqrt(u² + u_ref²) and treat the two as compatible when z ≤ 2. If you use another threshold, state it.
    • Convert an expanded uncertainty (for example k=2) to a standard uncertainty by dividing by its coverage factor first. Do not judge by whether the ±u intervals overlap: with equal uncertainties they stop overlapping at z ≈ 1.4.
    • Do not infer significance from an uncertainty-free comparison.

3. Use the deterministic checker when useful

scripts/check_plausibility.py checks finite values, bounds, expected-range membership, order gap, uncertainty compatibility (the z rule of check 6), and additive conservation balances from a JSON record. It does not understand physical meaning or unit conversions; normalize all compared values to the same unit first.

python3 scripts/check_plausibility.py case.json
python3 scripts/check_plausibility.py case.json --json

Input format:

{
  "quantity": "launch speed",
  "value": 11200,
  "unit": "m/s",
  "bounds": {"min": 0},
  "expected_range": {"min": 10000, "max": 13000, "source": "source URL", "checked": "YYYY-MM-DD"},
  "reference": {"value": 11186, "unit": "m/s", "source": "source URL", "checked": "YYYY-MM-DD"},
  "max_order_gap": 1,
  "uncertainty": 50,
  "reference_uncertainty": 20,
  "max_z": 2,
  "conservation": {
    "left": [100.0, 5.0],
    "right": [103.0, 2.0],
    "relative_tolerance": 0.001
  }
}
FieldMeaningDefault
valuecandidate value (required)—
quantity, unit, conditions, source, notesdescriptive text; not checked—
boundshard limits, min and/or max (for example min: 0 for a mass)—
expected_rangemin and max of a justified range, optional source and checked—
referencecomparison value, optional unit, source, checked; enables the order-of-magnitude check—
max_order_gaplargest allowed abs(log10(value / reference)); needs reference1
uncertainty, reference_uncertaintystandard uncertainties (k=1) of the candidate and the reference, in the unit of value; need reference—
max_zlargest allowed z = abs(value − reference) / sqrt(uncertainty² + reference_uncertainty²); the script prints z2
conservationleft and right arrays of balance terms, optional relative_tolerance1e-6

Omit checks for which no honest input exists. Unknown or misspelled fields are input errors, so a check is never skipped silently. Exit code 0 means no mechanical check failed, 1 means at least one failed, and 2 means invalid input. --selftest runs the script's regression cases.

4. Diagnose failures

For each failed check, give:

  • the observed discrepancy;
  • the physical principle or assumption it threatens;
  • likely causes, ranked when possible (unit conversion, sign convention, exponent, omitted exchange term, invalid approximation, wrong regime, bad data);
  • the cheapest discriminating next check.

Do not repair the result silently. Preserve the original candidate and show any corrected alternative separately.

Output format

## Candidate
- Quantity: ...
- Result: ...
- Conditions: ...

## Checks
| Check | Status | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Units/dimensions | pass/fail/not run | ... |
| Sign/domain | pass/fail/not run | ... |
| Order of magnitude | pass/fail/not run | ratio ..., order gap ... |
| Limiting behavior | pass/fail/not run | ... |
| Conservation/balance | pass/fail/not run | residual ... |
| Uncertainty compatibility | pass/fail/not run | z ..., threshold ... |

## Verdict
plausible | questionable | implausible | insufficient evidence

## Next action
- ...

Verdict rules:

  • implausible: at least one clear physical contradiction or failed hard constraint;
  • questionable: a material discrepancy remains but could be explained by missing context or uncertainty;
  • plausible: all applicable checks pass and at least two independent physical anchors were run;
  • insufficient evidence: fewer than two independent anchors can be run.

Never translate plausible into “correct.”

Boundaries and handoffs

  • Use dimensional-analysis-checker for detailed term-by-term dimensional auditing.
  • Use limiting-case-validator for symbolic limits, asymptotic expansions, or systematic enumeration of limits.
  • Use fermi-estimation-coach to construct an estimate when no defensible scale exists yet.
  • Use derivation-step-checker when the question is which algebraic or physical-law step failed.
  • This skill must not fabricate a reference value, silently convert incompatible units, or claim experimental validation from an internal consistency check.

References

  • references/reference-values.md — provenance and comparison rules for reference values (check 3)
  • ../_shared/physics-evidence-contract.md — §4 academic-integrity boundary shared by all physics skills

变更记录 / Changelog

版本日期变更类型
0.1.12026-09-26不确定度相容改用 z 值(差值除以合成标准不确定度,输入按 k=1 的标准不确定度,默认阈值 max_z=2),原 ±u 区间重叠判据在约 1.4σ 就判失败(references 同步);输入格式补 expected_range、max_order_gap、max_z;未知或拼错的键改为输入错误;脚本加 --selftest;泛称"derivation checker"改为点名 derivation-step-checker;补 _shared 证据契约 §4 引用;示例命令改用 python3(macOS 自带的只有 python3)patch
0.1.02026-09-05初始版本minor

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

当学生说"Common App 活动栏写不下"、"这段活动描述超字数了"、"帮我把这几条压到限制内"时使用。先按官方申请表核对当季字符限额,再逐条检查;一次把所有条目量完并直接给出压缩版,只在需要砍掉实质内容时才用选择题问该保哪部分。每改一版都用工具重新数一遍字符,绝不凭感觉说"这样应该够了"。只压缩,不代写空白。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生说"我参加过一些活动但没整理过"、"帮我把经历录进去"、"我的活动档案是空的"时使用。让学生一口气把记得的活动说出来,直接把这段话拆成结构化的长期事项(角色、组织、起止时间、做了什么、结果、级别),说不清的字段留空标"待补"而不是编,再用一张选择题卡把级别判定与是否重复这类关键项一次问完,然后提案入库。只记录学生真正说出口的内容,级别按事实判定,绝不往高了写。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当学生问"招生官会怎么看我的档案"、"我的背景还差什么"、"帮我评估一下现在的申请竞争力"时使用。以顶尖大学招生官的视角通读学生的档案、长期活动与已写下的反思,不问任何前置问题直接产出一份指名道姓的坦诚点评:这份材料的亮点、招生官真实的解读方式、明显的短板与空白、以及接下来最值得做的一到两件事。只读不写,不修改学生的任何数据,也不代写任何申请材料。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当使用者说"帮我填词"、"按这个字数模板写歌词"、"用多Agent对抗式写词"、"这首副歌帮我想几句"时使用,前提是字数骨架和这首歌写什么都已经有了;只有主题、还没定写什么时先用 lyric-concept-builder。拿一份字数骨架和意象系统,派三个 sonnet 子代理按不同路子并行独立起草(场景派 / 口语派 / 意象派),再派一个红队子代理逐句挑毛病,主 Agent 按句裁决拼稿,最后统一辙口与意象。收敛判据卡死:字数用 lyric-doctor 的脚本对模板数、每段同辙、hook 不含陈词、主歌二对主歌一有推进。不抄现有歌词,不替使用者决定这首歌要说什么。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当想知道一段 AI 回答"哪些能直接用、哪些必须先验证、哪些只能当建议"时使用。按声明类型分四级——低风险草稿材料、观点与策略建议、可查证的事实声明、会改变状态的可执行指令——每级配一句默认处置动作;再按影响半径排序,给出最小的下一步检查。可执行类一律标"不能直接执行;先做代码审阅/沙箱测试/回滚准备",其中破坏性或提权的命令排在最前。教的是一套可复用的复查习惯,不是替使用者把所有内容都核实一遍:本 skill 只分级、排序、定处置,要逐条核实走 ai-output-fact-checker,整段代码要做入库体检走 ai-code-onboarding-checklist。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

当拿到一段 AI 生成的代码,还没决定要不要信、要不要跑、要不要往上继续加东西时使用。先做一遍客观体检:行数与嵌套深度、有没有测试、有没有硬编码密钥或遗留 TODO、依赖是不是真实存在、有没有危险调用(eval/exec、shell=True、递归删除、反序列化、提权、外发网络,按正文给的 grep 模式逐类查);再给风险评级和下一步动作。老实写明它查不了算法正确性——体检通过不等于代码是对的。回答里文字、事实和代码混在一起时先用 ai-answer-triage 分级;只审相对已有代码的一份改动用 ai-diff-review-protocol。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

ChromiteCr/Skills42026年10月16日 更新

ChromiteCr のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する