wehub-resource-sync
3.0 KiB
Invocation Contexts
Load this for a warm invocation (SKILL.md Phase 0). The method is one method; warm is a modifier on where the question comes from and how much ceremony is warranted, not a second workflow.
Cold vs warm
- Cold — the user opens with an explicit external question at session start. Run the full method at the warranted tier.
- Warm —
ce-povis dropped into a live session ("weigh in", "give me your POV on this") and the question lives in the surrounding conversation, or is absent.
What warm takes from the conversation: the question only
The conversation supplies the question and the claims-to-verify — nothing else. It is not grounding. The biggest failure here is consensus laundering: twenty turns of you and the agent mutually assuming "we must migrate off X" quietly becoming "grounding," producing a confident verdict that ratifies chat fiction.
So every input is labeled by provenance, and only verified buckets satisfy the gate (see references/method.md):
| Bucket | Counts as grounding? |
|---|---|
| Observed project facts (from a scout dossier) | Yes |
| Verified external facts (from a scout dossier) | Yes |
| Conversation claims | No — frame and hypotheses until a scout corroborates |
| Unconfirmed assumptions | No — surfaced for the user to confirm or deny |
If the conversation says "we have 40 call-sites on X," the project-grounding scout must confirm that against the codebase before it counts. Warm adds no evidentiary weight — it surfaces the question and hypotheses; the scouts still do the independent grounding. Same invalidation rule, no warm exemption.
Establishing the question (frame gate)
A warm invocation with no explicit question, or a materially ambiguous one, goes through the frame gate in references/intake.md — infer the decision from the conversation, propose/confirm it, then proceed. Rendering a confident POV on the wrong question is the warm-mode failure that gate prevents. Skip the gate when the user named the question ("ce-pov: should we use X?") — a mandatory confirm on every warm run is the bureaucratic ritual the skill avoids.
Be more adversarial than cold — operationalized
The conversation's momentum pulls toward agreement, and a second opinion that rubber-stamps is worthless. "More adversarial" is not an attitude; it is two concrete rules:
- Run an explicit disconfirming-evidence pass on each load-bearing conversation claim — try to refute it from the scout dossiers before accepting it.
- Never upgrade a grade on conversation momentum alone — if the only thing pushing toward Adopt is that the room already wants it, that is not grounding, and the grade does not move.
Guest output contract
Warm is a guest, not a host:
- Output a verdict block only — no reframing of the host session, no taking over the brainstorm.
- Hand control back after the verdict.
- Skip the capture offer unless the user asks — a mid-session interjection should not push a durable-record decision.