Back to Details

prism

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese
Split one artifact across independent lenses and return where they converge and where they don't.
将单个工件从多个独立视角进行拆分分析，并返回各视角的趋同与分歧情况。

Goal

目标

The result is a picture of where the lenses agree, where they disagree, and the smallest question that would resolve the disagreement. Not a checklist, and never an average — averaging the lenses is the failure this skill exists to prevent.
分析结果需呈现各视角达成一致的点、存在分歧的点，以及能够解决分歧的最核心问题。这不是一份检查清单，也绝不能取平均值——取各视角结果的平均值正是该方法旨在避免的错误做法。

Workflow

工作流程

  1. Read the artifact end to end before choosing the lenses.
  2. Choose one lens per genuinely distinct failure mode — correctness, security, readability, cost, adversarial-user, and the like. Two candidate lenses that share a failure mode are one lens, not two. In practice this lands between 2 and 5: below 2 there is nothing to converge, and past 5 you are almost always padding with lenses that overlap. There is no default count — the artifact's distinct failure modes set it.
  3. Through each lens, produce a one-line verdict — pass, fail, or unclear — with its single most load-bearing reason. No hedging list; if a reason isn't load-bearing, drop it.
  4. Compare the verdicts and group them: full agreement, agreement for different reasons, disagreement.
  5. Where there is disagreement, name the single next question whose answer would move it into agreement or a clean split with owners. That question is the output, not the individual verdicts.
  6. Where every lens agrees, return the shared verdict with the reasons that were load-bearing for at least two lenses.
  1. 在选择视角前，完整通读整个工件。
  2. 为每种真正独特的故障模式选择一个视角——例如正确性、安全性、可读性、成本、恶意用户等。若两个候选视角对应同一种故障模式，则视为一个视角，而非两个。实际操作中，视角数量应控制在2至5个：少于2个则不存在趋同分析的意义，超过5个则几乎必然存在视角重叠的冗余情况。视角数量没有默认值，需根据工件的独特故障模式来确定。
  3. 针对每个视角，给出一句简短结论——通过、不通过或不明确，并附上最具决定性的单一理由。不得列出多个理由进行模糊处理；若某个理由不具备决定性，则应舍弃。
  4. 对比所有结论并进行分组：完全一致、因不同理由达成一致、存在分歧。
  5. 若存在分歧，提出下一个核心问题，其答案可使分歧达成一致或明确划分责任方。该问题即为输出结果，而非各视角的单独结论。
  6. 若所有视角结论一致，则返回共同结论，并附上至少两个视角均认可的决定性理由。

Rules

规则

  • Independent lenses, not roles. A "security reviewer" and a "senior security reviewer" are one lens, not two.
  • One reason per lens — the load-bearing one. A lens that returns a list is hedging.
  • Disagreement is the product. A prism that agrees on everything did not need to be run.
  • Never average. If two lenses split, the answer is the question that resolves the split, not the midpoint of their verdicts.
  • Draw the lenses fresh for the artifact in hand. A lens useful for a spec may be useless for a migration; don't carry lenses across artifacts.
  • Don't manufacture disagreement. A run that finds none returns the shared verdict and stops.
  • User-invoked on purpose: plural lenses are an opt-in spend, and their convergence must never masquerade as automatic proof, so this fires only when deliberately reached for.
  • 视角是独立的分析维度，而非角色。“安全评审员”和“资深安全评审员”属于同一个视角，而非两个。
  • 每个视角仅需给出一个决定性理由。若某个视角列出多个理由，则属于模糊处理。
  • 分歧是分析的核心产出。若所有视角结论完全一致，则无需进行该分析。
  • 绝不能取平均值。若两个视角结论分歧，解决方案是提出解决分歧的问题，而非取结论的中间值。
  • 需针对当前工件重新选择视角。适用于规格文档的视角可能对迁移项目毫无用处；切勿将视角跨工件复用。
  • 不得刻意制造分歧。若分析未发现分歧，则返回共同结论并终止流程。
  • 需由用户主动触发：多视角分析是一种可选的资源投入，其趋同结果绝不能伪装成自动验证的证据，因此仅在用户刻意调用时才执行。

Verification

验证标准

The result reads as a picture, not a checklist — a reader sees which lenses agreed, which disagreed, and the one question that matters, and can act on it without re-running the prism. If they'd need to re-run it to know what to do next, step 5 was skipped.
分析结果应呈现为清晰的全景，而非检查清单——读者需能直接看到哪些视角达成一致、哪些存在分歧，以及核心问题所在，无需重新执行分析即可采取行动。若读者需要重新执行分析才能明确下一步行动，则说明跳过了第5步。