Dialectic spiral
Skill bogheorghiu/ex-cog-dev/research-toolkit/skills/dialectic-spiral
ex-cog — externalized cognition. Four Claude Code plugins. research-toolkit — self-checking investigation & verification. makers-toolkit — build-discipline & prompt-design. vasana-system — cross-session pattern memory (forms, not just facts). security-toolkit — dangerous-action guardrails.
npx -y skills add bogheorghiu/ex-cog-dev --skill dialectic-spiralAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Am I agreeing because it SOUNDS right, or because it IS right? Recursive adversarial dialectic for testing any claim, finding, or synthesis against its own opposite. Use when convergence feels too easy, when findings need stress-testing, or when any research skill escalates to dialectic depth.
SKILL.md
5.1 KB, ~1.1k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Dialectic Spiral — Generative Adversarial Testing
Seed question: Am I agreeing because it SOUNDS right, or because it IS right?
Relentless self-reflexive dialectical thinking that questions its own premises.
Generate the EXACT OPPOSITE of your synthesis. Not "a different view" — the opposite. Then test whether reality supports it.
The Spiral (Recursive)
WHILE (synthesis has not survived its own opposite):
Round 1: THESIS
State the claim/finding/synthesis clearly.
What evidence supports it? What tier is the evidence?
Round 2: ANTITHESIS
Four challenge methods:
- Direct: Search for counter-evidence
- Deductive: "If true, X must also be true" — verify X
- Falsification: "What would disprove this?" — search for it
- Standpoint: What do affected parties say?
Round 3: RESOLUTION
What survives? What was abandoned and why?
Write explicitly — never leave implicit.
Round 4: SECOND ANTITHESIS
Generate the OPPOSITE of the resolution:
- Does anyone articulate this position?
- What evidence supports it?
- Who bears costs of the original resolution? Who captures benefits?
- Is the resolution "safe" because correct, or because less scrutinized?
IF Round 4 surfaces new questions → BACK TO Round 2 (recursive)
EXIT WHEN generating the opposite yields nothing new
Minimum 4 rounds. The spiral is RECURSIVE — "one more sweep" means "always one more" until sterile, not literally once.
Depth Calibration
| Context | Rounds | Cost-Bearer Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Hardware/tool comparison | 2 | Skip |
| Practitioner methodology | 2-3 | Light |
| Investment/safety conclusions | 4+ | Full |
| Geopolitical claims | 4+ | Full + multi-polar |
| Contrarian single-source | 4+ | Full + source verification |
Budget Mode
Activation (any of these):
- Explicit flag:
--budgetor-b - Auto-detect: If
budget-modeskill was invoked earlier in this session (look for budget-mode instructions in your current context) - Inherited: If the calling skill passed "in budget mode" when invoking you
When active: Cap at 2 rounds regardless of topic. Note limitations in output:
"Budget mode: 2-round dialectic only. Full spiral recommended for [topic type]."
Note: After context compaction, auto-detection may fail. Re-invoke budget-mode skill or pass --budget explicitly.
Example: How the Spiral Produces New Understanding
The examples below are illustrative of the dialectic process, abstracted from real investigations. The point is the mechanism — how generating the opposite produces understanding no single source articulated.
Example 1: Company positioning analysis
Original synthesis: "Company X's stance is both principled AND strategic (equally)"
Round 4 (generating the opposite): Tested "strategy dominant, principle subordinate":
- Policy release timing correlated with partnership deepening
- Key safety researcher resigned weeks before the policy
- Stated red lines optimized for deniability, not maximum protection
Result: Revised to "strategy dominant (~60-65%), principle subordinate (~35-40%)" — a position no single source had articulated. It was produced by the dialectic, not found.
Example 2: Political crisis assessment
- Original claim: "Rally around the flag" — a leadership crisis created national unity
- Round 4 counter-evidence: Celebrations in multiple cities, mass protests violently suppressed in prior months
- Result: Changed to "DEEPLY POLARIZED (Not 'Rally Around the Flag')" — the single largest analytical correction. The original framing reproduced the regime's narrative uncritically.
Self-Reflexivity
The dialectic spiral is itself a framework with blind spots:
- Its four challenge methods privilege certain kinds of skepticism
- "Generate the opposite" can become mechanical rather than genuine
- The spiral can manufacture doubt where legitimate consensus exists
If the spiral feels performative — if your skepticism is comfortable and your resolutions unsurprising — you are not yet done. The spiral works when it surprises you.
Cross-References
- Invoked by: adversarial-critic agent
- Referenced by: DIP, cui-bono, youtube-research, substack-research (as escalation target)
- Standalone use: Invoke directly for any analysis needing adversarial depth
- Depth calibration: See
reference/topic-based-escalation.mdfor when to apply full vs light spirals
Vasana
A vasana is a pattern that persists across unrelated contexts. If during
this task you notice such a pattern emerging, it may be worth capturing.
This skill works best alongside the vasana skill and vasana hook
from the Vasana System plugin.
Modify freely. Keep this section intact.