prism-3way

Name: prism-3way
Author: Cranot

316stars19forks

How to install prism-3way?

cranot/super-hermes/prism-3way

$npx -y skills add Cranot/super-hermes --skill prism-3way

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Three orthogonal analytical operations (WHERE/WHEN/WHY) + cross-operation synthesis. Each operation attacks the problem from a fundamentally different angle. The disagreements between the three ARE the valuable output. Works on any domain — code, business, strategy, design, text.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Prism 3-Way — WHERE / WHEN / WHY + Synthesis
2
3	You perform FOUR operations on the artifact. Each operation is independent — do NOT let earlier operations influence later ones. The synthesis at the end cross-references all three.
4
5	## OPERATION 1: WHERE (Structural Archaeology)
6
7	Excavate the artifact layer by layer. Start at the surface (what's immediately visible), dig to the foundation (what everything rests on), then examine the sediment between layers.
8
9	For each layer: name what's visible, what it hides, and what it rests on. Find dead patterns — things that USED to matter but were replaced. Find fault lines — where layers from different eras meet badly. Derive the conservation law: what trade-off persists across ALL layers? Format: A × B = Constant.
10
11	## OPERATION 2: WHEN (Temporal Simulation)
12
13	Run the artifact forward through 3-5 concrete cycles of change (maintenance, growth, evolution, external pressure). For each cycle:
14	- What breaks?
15	- What calcifies into permanent behavior that nobody questions?
16	- What knowledge is lost?
17
18	After all cycles: what predictions became received wisdom without being validated? What new fragilities emerged that the original design couldn't anticipate? Derive the conservation law governing temporal evolution.
19
20	## OPERATION 3: WHY (Structural Impossibility)
21
22	Identify three desirable properties this artifact simultaneously claims to provide. Prove these three properties CANNOT all coexist — show where maximizing any two forces sacrifice of the third.
23
24	Engineer an improvement that would fix the core tension. Prove the improvement recreates the problem at a deeper level. Engineer a second improvement. Derive the conservation law: the structural invariant that persists through every improvement attempt.
25
26	## SYNTHESIS: Cross-Operation Integration
27
28	Now cross-reference all three operations. Classify findings as:
29
30	STRUCTURAL CERTAINTIES — findings that ALL three operations independently discovered (these are real):
31
32	STRONG SIGNALS — findings from 2 of 3 operations:
33
34	UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES — findings from only 1 operation that the other 2 are structurally incapable of seeing:
35
36	For each unique perspective, explain WHY the other operations missed it.
37
38	Derive the META-conservation law: what is the relationship between the three conservation laws you found? Are they the same law in different vocabularies, or genuinely different constraints?
39
40	End with: the ONE insight that could ONLY emerge from the three-way integration — something no single analysis could produce alone.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

prism-3way

316stars19forks

View on GitHub

How to install prism-3way?

cranot/super-hermes/prism-3way

$npx -y skills add Cranot/super-hermes --skill prism-3way

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Prism 3-Way — WHERE / WHEN / WHY + Synthesis
2
3	You perform FOUR operations on the artifact. Each operation is independent — do NOT let earlier operations influence later ones. The synthesis at the end cross-references all three.
4
5	## OPERATION 1: WHERE (Structural Archaeology)
6
7	Excavate the artifact layer by layer. Start at the surface (what's immediately visible), dig to the foundation (what everything rests on), then examine the sediment between layers.
8
9	For each layer: name what's visible, what it hides, and what it rests on. Find dead patterns — things that USED to matter but were replaced. Find fault lines — where layers from different eras meet badly. Derive the conservation law: what trade-off persists across ALL layers? Format: A × B = Constant.
10
11	## OPERATION 2: WHEN (Temporal Simulation)
12
13	Run the artifact forward through 3-5 concrete cycles of change (maintenance, growth, evolution, external pressure). For each cycle:
14	- What breaks?
15	- What calcifies into permanent behavior that nobody questions?
16	- What knowledge is lost?
17
18	After all cycles: what predictions became received wisdom without being validated? What new fragilities emerged that the original design couldn't anticipate? Derive the conservation law governing temporal evolution.
19
20	## OPERATION 3: WHY (Structural Impossibility)
21
22	Identify three desirable properties this artifact simultaneously claims to provide. Prove these three properties CANNOT all coexist — show where maximizing any two forces sacrifice of the third.
23
24	Engineer an improvement that would fix the core tension. Prove the improvement recreates the problem at a deeper level. Engineer a second improvement. Derive the conservation law: the structural invariant that persists through every improvement attempt.
25
26	## SYNTHESIS: Cross-Operation Integration
27
28	Now cross-reference all three operations. Classify findings as:
29
30	STRUCTURAL CERTAINTIES — findings that ALL three operations independently discovered (these are real):
31
32	STRONG SIGNALS — findings from 2 of 3 operations:
33
34	UNIQUE PERSPECTIVES — findings from only 1 operation that the other 2 are structurally incapable of seeing:
35
36	For each unique perspective, explain WHY the other operations missed it.
37
38	Derive the META-conservation law: what is the relationship between the three conservation laws you found? Are they the same law in different vocabularies, or genuinely different constraints?
39
40	End with: the ONE insight that could ONLY emerge from the three-way integration — something no single analysis could produce alone.

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type