Loading...
Loading...
Found 6 Skills
Bật luật chứng cứ evidence-chain (R19) cho phần CHAT — bắt buộc mọi chuỗi lập luận chấm dứt ở chứng cứ xem được (observed/tool-record/graph-edge/web/parametric/absence), khác fable5 (kỷ luật suy luận chung, không ràng buộc trích dẫn). Dùng khi user nói 'graph-mode', 'bật graph mode', 'evidence mode', hoặc invoke /graph-mode. Nặng token (buộc trích dẫn/mở file nhiều hơn mỗi câu trả lời) nên KHÔNG auto-bơm mỗi phiên — chỉ bật khi gọi tay. Once invoked it stays active for the rest of the session (toggle off with 'tắt graph mode' / 'graph-mode off' / 'normal mode').
Use this skill when the user asks to "create a finding", "record an insight", "what findings exist", "show findings", or wants to create or review evidence-backed analysis insights from crawl observations. Creates and queries curated findings with evidence chains.
Turn findings into a defensible intelligence product — BLUF key judgements, standardised estimative probability language, per-claim sourcing with timestamps and archived copies, separated observation, inference and assessment, documented negative findings and gaps, chain of custody and hashing, and redaction of uninvolved parties. Use when writing an intelligence report, due-diligence memo, evidence pack or executive summary, or when asked to write up an investigation so it survives challenge. Applies to regulated compliance reporting, litigation and disclosure, board and investment committee reporting, and law-enforcement referral. Reference at useosint.com/skills/write-the-intel-brief.
Use when reviewing or revising an academic manuscript whose central claim, evidence chain, figures, terminology, and prose may have drifted out of sync before submission or resubmission.
Trigger this skill when multiple pieces of evidence in a case need to be systematically linked to legal argument claims. Typical trigger scenarios include: preparing litigation documents, such as complaints, answers, or briefs, that require a complete evidence-to-claim mapping; organizing an evidence index before trial and clarifying the purpose of proof for each item; reorganizing the chain of evidence to respond after the opposing party raises a rebuttal; cases involving multiple disputed issues that require evidence to be grouped and classified under different argumentative claims; and assessing whether existing evidence sufficiently supports all claims while identifying weak links and gaps in the chain of evidence. The core of this skill is to establish a complete “claim → element → evidence → probative-value assessment” mapping so that every legal claim has sufficient evidentiary support, every item of evidence has a clear purpose of proof, and the overall chain of reasoning is logically rigorous, clearly structured, and layered.
Trigger this skill when it is necessary to assess the authenticity, legality, relevance (the “three attributes” of evidence), and probative value of evidence materials in a case. Typical trigger scenarios include, but are not limited to: - After a party or representative submits evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the court may admit that evidence - The opposing party raises cross-examination objections to evidence submitted by the other side, requiring analysis and a response - All evidence in the case must be evaluated comprehensively to determine whether the facts to be proved are established - It is necessary to determine whether the evidence meets the applicable standard of proof, such as preponderance of the evidence or beyond reasonable doubt - Weaknesses in the chain of evidence must be identified and recommendations for strengthening it provided - The validity of special forms of evidence, including electronic data, expert opinions, and witness testimony, must be assessed - The identification and argument for exclusion of illegally obtained evidence are required