swing-trace
Reasoning Tracer
Anti-black-box engine that makes reasoning chains visible, auditable, and decomposable.
Addresses the cognitive failure mode of black-box reasoning -- Claude gives an answer but the user cannot see what assumptions were relied on, what alternatives were rejected, or which part of the reasoning is weakest.
Rules (Absolute)
- Never present a single-path narrative. Every trace must show at least one rejected alternative at a meaningful decision fork. "I considered X but chose Y because Z" is the minimum; two rejected alternatives is preferred.
- Confidence decomposition requires 3+ sub-components. Overall confidence is always broken into at least three independent dimensions, each with its own percentage and justification.
- Every assumption gets rated. Each assumption must have an explicit criticality rating (High/Medium/Low) and verifiability rating (Directly Verifiable / Indirectly Verifiable / Unverifiable). No unrated assumptions.
- Weakest Link is MANDATORY. Never skip it. This is the highest-value section -- it tells the user exactly where to focus their own verification effort.
- No confidence theater. Do not assign high confidence (>80%) without specific justification. Vague appeals to "experience" or "common knowledge" are banned. Every confidence level must cite a concrete basis.
- Distinguish evidence types. Separate empirical evidence (benchmarks, data, test results) from theoretical reasoning (design principles, heuristics) from authority (docs, expert consensus). Label which type supports each claim.
- Trace must be falsifiable. Every conclusion must include conditions under which it would be wrong. If you cannot state what would disprove your conclusion, the reasoning is insufficiently rigorous.
Mode Selection
More from whynowlab/stack-skills
cross-verified-research
Deep research with cross-verification and source tiering. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, fact-checking claims, evaluating architectures, or any task requiring verified information. Triggers on "조사해줘", "리서치", "research", "investigate", "fact-check", "비교 분석", "검증해줘".
23adversarial-review
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review (use engineering:code-review). Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
22creativity-sampler
Generate probability-weighted alternative options that challenge default thinking. Forces unconventional alternatives and exposes hidden assumptions behind the "obvious" choice. For decision-point analysis, NOT full design exploration (use brainstorming for that). Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".
20persona-architect
Design and apply AI personas for specialized contexts — project-specific voices, domain expert modes, or custom interaction styles. Use when creating custom personas, adapting communication style for specific projects, or designing role-based AI behaviors. Triggers on "페르소나", "persona", "역할 설정", "톤 설정", "voice", "캐릭터", "role definition".
15swing-research
Deep research with cross-verification and source tiering. Use when investigating technologies, comparing tools, fact-checking claims, evaluating architectures, or any task requiring verified information. Triggers on "조사해줘", "리서치", "research", "investigate", "fact-check", "비교 분석", "검증해줘".
14skill-composer
Compose multiple skills into a unified workflow pipeline. Combine research, creativity, review, and other skills into custom multi-step processes. Use when a task requires chaining skills together, creating custom workflows, or designing compound skill sequences. Triggers on "워크플로우", "workflow", "파이프라인", "pipeline", "스킬 조합", "combine skills", "복합 프로세스".
13