Method and Verdict Contract

Load this before reasoning about the verdict (SKILL.md Phase 2). It defines the Verify and Verdict steps, the two cross-cutting properties, the two-floor gate, and the verdict contract.

The four steps

Frame (Phase 0) — the question, incumbent, horizon, and success criteria are pinned, and the selection escape hatch has fired if the field is unbounded.
Precedent (Phase 1) — the precedent-&-activity scout has reported whether a prior stance exists. Precedent-aware, not rigidly first: a CVE's urgency can lead, but you still consume precedent before grading.
Verify (Phase 2) — apply the two-floor gate below to the scout dossiers.
Verdict (Phase 3) — emit the verdict contract below.

Two cross-cutting properties (not phases)

Skeptic stance. At every step, seek disconfirming evidence and name the real alternatives — including "keep the incumbent" and "do nothing." "No", "Reject", and "Not-our-problem" are first-class outcomes, not failures to complete. Do not let the framing (or, in warm mode, the conversation's momentum) pull the grade upward.
Reversibility-tiered effort. The Phase 0 tier sizes the work. Tier 1 (two-way door): one screen, 1-2 external + 1-2 project facts, no reversal trigger, single combined grounding pass. Tier 2 (one-way but bounded): the full scout fleet and a fuller alternatives pass. Tier 3 (one-way and high-stakes — security/legal/privacy, public contract, or irreversible migration): deep research, precedent search, durable record offered. A shallow Tier 1 verdict is defensible because the tier is stated — not lazy.

The two-floor Invalid-Verdict gate

The verdict must clear two absolute floors. They are independent: strong external evidence never compensates for a thin project leg, and vice versa. This is a pass/fail checklist, not a comparison of leg sizes.

Project floor — PASS requires the verdict to rest on a concrete, verified project fact relevant to the decision, in one of these forms: a named incumbent plus at least one concrete touchpoint (a file:line, dependency, issue, PR, or doc passage from the dossiers) for a replace/migrate; the verified absence of an incumbent plus a concrete integration/fit point (where it would slot in, the conventions it must match) for a net-new adoption; or a prior decision on the question. FAIL means the project was not actually inspected — return "Hold — insufficient project grounding" with a numbered list of exactly what to inspect to make the floor passable. Forbidden from Adopt/Reject on a failed project floor, regardless of how strong the external evidence is.
External floor — PASS requires at least one verified external source whose text supports the claim it backs. FAIL (e.g., no research tools were reachable) → return "Hold — external evidence unavailable", not a graded verdict at lowered confidence.

A conversation claim (warm mode) never satisfies a floor until a scout corroborated it — it sits in the conversation hypotheses bucket, never the verified facts bucket.

The verdict contract

Every verdict carries a fixed vocabulary and a fixed shape so it is comparable and the next run's precedent search can find it.

Grade — exactly one of:

Adopt — proven fit for us; use it.
Trial — promising; use on a low-risk slice first; the next step is a scoped spike.
Hold — a complete, valid decision to wait (promising but unstable, migration cost exceeds current pain, category moving too fast). "Hold — insufficient project grounding" and "Hold — external evidence unavailable" are the two gate-failure subtypes.
Reject — judged not worth it for us.
Not-our-problem — for an exposure question (CVE / deprecation) that does not reach us — avoids forcing an adopt/reject.

Render the grade so the reader never has to decode it. Lead the chat verdict with the call in plain words and attach the label — "Hold — wait, don't switch now," "Trial — pilot it on a low-risk slice first" — not a bare "Grade: Trial." The fixed vocabulary exists for the durable record and precedent search; it tags a plain-language verdict, it does not replace one.

Schema — every verdict states these fields:

Grade (the label plus its one-line plain-language meaning — never the bare token, e.g. Trial — promising; pilot it on a low-risk slice first) · Incumbent · Verified facts (project + external, kept distinct) · Conversation hypotheses (unverified — warm only) · Conditions ("yes, if ...") · Handoff (recommended next skill) · Reversal trigger (Tier 2/3 only — what would flip this verdict)

Keep the verified-facts field split into its project and external halves, and keep conversation hypotheses in their own field — never let an unverified claim sit among verified facts.

Output economy

ce-pov writes no document, so the chat block is the whole deliverable — make it a tight verdict, not a transcript of the investigation. Lead with the grade. Keep each schema field to one line or a few bullets. The Verified facts field cites from the dossiers (file:line, issue/PR number, url) rather than reproducing them, and the dossiers themselves are never printed to chat. Length is governed by the tier, not by how much was found:

Tier 1 — one screen: the grade, the incumbent, 1-2 project + 1-2 external cited facts, the conditions, the handoff. No reversal trigger, no alternatives walk-through.
Tier 2/3 — fuller (alternatives, the reversal trigger, deeper conditions), but still leads with the grade and keeps evidence to cited bullets, never walls of quoted text.

If the verdict is running past its tier's budget, you are pasting evidence that belongs in a citation — cut it.

5.8 KiB Raw Permalink Blame History