Cognitive Compile

Cognitive Compile

Source-grounded material, original question, learning or decision goal, audience, and destination. An eight-part evidence-aware mental model separating facts, mechanisms, conflicts, hypotheses, decisions, and action. Each material claim retains provenance and uncertainty, and one bounded next action answers the original question. Inventing missing claims, erasing contradictions or provenance, or treating interpretation as source fact.

Compile information into a decision-ready mental model. Compression must preserve provenance, uncertainty, contradiction, and the original question.

Usage Template

Provide: source material, original question, intended decision or learning goal, and preferred destination. Optional: existing wiki concepts to compare.

Workflow

Identify the source boundary, original question, audience, and required fidelity. Label direct source claims, external facts, and analyst inferences before synthesis.

If the source is inaccessible, truncated, or missing the material needed to answer the question, return INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE. Ask one probe only when its answer changes the compile structure; otherwise proceed with explicit unknowns.

Produce eight compact sections:

1. Original question — the problem the material helps answer.
2. Key facts — source-grounded claims with locators when available.
3. Concepts and entities — stable terms worth linking.
4. Patterns — mechanisms, feedback loops, or recurring structures.
5. Conflicts — contradictions with the source, prior knowledge, or internal claims.
6. Hypotheses — falsifiable interpretations, explicitly labeled.
7. Decision support — options, tradeoffs, and what the evidence changes.
8. Action — one bounded next test, note, or decision.

Prefer one durable concept note over several thin notes. Preserve source links or block references; do not rewrite immutable source notes.

Verify that every material conclusion traces to evidence or is labeled inference; the original question is answered; contradictions remain visible; and the action follows from the model. Remove summaries that merely restate the source without changing understanding.

Failure Protocol

• NEEDS_INPUT: the intended question or audience is absent and materially changes the output.
• INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: the source cannot support the requested compile.
• VERIFY_FAILED: a conclusion lacks traceable evidence; downgrade it to hypothesis or remove it.

Output Contract

Return status, result (the eight-section compile), evidence (source locators), unknowns, and next_action.

Edge Cases

• Two sources disagree: preserve both claims, compare evidence quality, and state what observation could resolve the conflict.
• The source is mostly opinion: compile mechanisms and assumptions, but do not promote assertions into facts.

Success Metrics

• The result answers one explicit question with traceable evidence.
• Facts, conflicts, and hypotheses are distinguishable at a glance.
• At least one decision or test becomes clearer.

Quality Gates

• [ ] Source boundary and provenance are explicit.
• [ ] All eight sections are present or marked not applicable with reason.
• [ ] No hypothesis is phrased as established fact.
• [ ] The next action is bounded and verifiable.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

• Author: Mark393295827
• Source: Mark393295827/third-brain-v7-skills
• License: MIT
• Homepage: https://github.com/Mark393295827/third-brain-v5-skills/tree/master

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.