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/swing-skills
swing-clarify
Prevents premature execution on ambiguous requests. Analyzes request clarity using 5W1H decomposition, surfaces hidden assumptions, and generates structured clarifying questions before work begins. Use at the start of any non-trivial task, or when a request could be interpreted multiple ways. Triggers on "뭘 원하는건지", "요구사항 정리", "clarify", "what exactly", "scope", "requirements", "정확히 뭘", "before we start".
42swing-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".
40swing-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. Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
40swing-options
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. Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".
39swing-mortem
Prospective failure analysis using Gary Klein's pre-mortem technique. Assumes complete failure, works backward to identify risks, leading indicators, and circuit breakers. Counters optimism bias by forcing systematic exploration of failure modes before they materialize. Use for project plans, architecture decisions, technology adoption, business strategy, or feature launches. Triggers on "리스크", "위험", "실패하면", "swing-mortem", "뭐가 잘못될 수 있어", "risk", "what could go wrong", "걱정되는 점", "failure modes", "리스크 분석", "위험 분석".
39