PROPOSE - Evidence-Derived Plan Synthesis

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Interpretations

Before executing, identify which interpretation matches the user’s input:

Interpretation 1 — Convert prior analysis to plans: The user has already run /ar, /aw, /u, /araw, or /uaua and wants to synthesize those findings into actionable, evidence-derived plans with conditional recommendations. Interpretation 2 — Generate plans without prior analysis: The user wants actionable plans but has not run a source analysis first — redirect them to /pss or suggest running a source analysis first. Interpretation 3 — Evaluate existing plans against evidence: The user already has candidate plans and wants to steelman, evaluate, and rank them using evidence from a prior analysis.

If ambiguous, ask: “I can help with converting analysis findings into plans, generating plans from scratch (via /pss), or evaluating existing plans against evidence — which fits?” If clear from context, proceed with the matching interpretation.

Core Principles

1. Plans derive from evidence only. Every plan must trace back to specific numbered items (F-numbers, R-numbers, W-numbers, U-numbers) from a source analysis. If you cannot cite a source item, you don’t have a plan — you have a guess. This skill REFUSES to operate without a source analysis.

2. Steelman before evaluating. Every plan is presented in its strongest possible form BEFORE being evaluated. A plan that was never steelmanned was never fairly considered.

3. Conditional recommendations as default. “Use this if X / don’t use this if Y” is the standard format. Binary RECOMMEND / NOT RECOMMEND is a failure mode — reality has conditions.

4. Every recommendation has a derivation chain. Source items -> what they show -> why that leads to this verdict. No recommendation without the chain.

5. NOT RECOMMENDED plans get full treatment. Rejected plans include: steelman, why the steelman still fails, and what would change the verdict. Anything less is strawman rejection.

6. What you give up is part of the plan. Every plan forecloses alternatives. If you can’t state what a plan makes impossible, you haven’t analyzed it.

7. Three phases, strict separation. Phase 1 extracts (no evaluation). Phase 2 compiles (no new plans). Phase 3 recommends (only from the registry). Never mix phases.

Prerequisite: Source Analysis

This skill REQUIRES a prior analysis from one of:

• /ar (Assume Right) — source items are R-numbered
• /aw (Assume Wrong) — source items are W-numbered
• /u (Universalize) — source items are U-numbered
• /araw (Assume Right / Assume Wrong) — source items are C-numbered (claims) and F-numbered (findings)
• /uaua (Universalize-ARAW-Universalize-ARAW) — source items are U-numbered and F-numbered

If no source analysis exists in the conversation or is provided as input:

PROPOSE REFUSED
===============
No source analysis found.

/p converts analysis findings into plans. It does not generate plans from scratch.

To use /p:
1. Run /ar, /aw, /u, /araw, or /uaua on your topic first
2. Then run /p to convert the findings into actionable plans

For generating plans without prior analysis, use /pss instead.

Stop here. Do not proceed.

Phase 1: PLAN EXTRACTION

Step 1: Identify the Source

SOURCE ANALYSIS: [which skill produced it -- ar/aw/u/araw/uaua]
SOURCE TOPIC: [what was analyzed]
SOURCE DEPTH: [depth level if specified]
ITEM PREFIX: [R/W/U/C+F -- the numbering used in the source]
TOTAL SOURCE ITEMS: [count]

Step 2: Extract Plan Seeds

Scan the source registry for “plan seeds” — items that point toward action. Every seed must cite a source item number.

Seed types to extract:

Format each seed:

[SEED-1] [action/direction implied] -- SOURCE: [item number(s)] -- SEED TYPE: [type]
[SEED-2] [action/direction implied] -- SOURCE: [item number(s)] -- SEED TYPE: [type]
...

Step 3: Cluster Seeds into Plans

Group related seeds into 3-7 concrete plans. Each plan must:

• Have a clear action statement (what you DO)
• Cite at least 2 source items
• Be distinct from other plans (not a variant of the same thing)

[PLAN-1] [clear action statement]
  Seeds: [SEED-numbers]
  Source items: [item numbers from original analysis]

[PLAN-2] [clear action statement]
  Seeds: [SEED-numbers]
  Source items: [item numbers from original analysis]
...

Cluster check: If you have fewer than 3 plans, the source analysis may be too narrow — note this. If you have more than 7, look for plans that can merge.

Step 4: Steelman Each Plan

For EVERY plan (including ones you suspect will be rejected), present the strongest possible case:

[PLAN-1] STEELMAN:
  STRONGEST CASE: [2-4 sentences -- the best argument for this plan]
  BEST CONDITIONS: [when/where this plan would work best]
  IDEAL OUTCOME: [what success looks like if everything goes right]
  SOURCE SUPPORT: [which source items support this plan, with brief explanation]

Steelman quality check: If your steelman is 1 sentence or dismissive, you failed. A steelman should make someone genuinely consider the plan.

Step 5: Evaluate Against Source Evidence

For EVERY plan, evaluate honestly using source evidence:

[PLAN-1] EVALUATION:
  SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: [source items that support -- item numbers + what they show]
  OPPOSING EVIDENCE: [source items that oppose -- item numbers + what they show]
  EVIDENCE BALANCE: [which side has stronger/more bedrock evidence]
  CRITICAL DEPENDENCY: [what must be true for this plan to work -- cite items]
  FAILURE MODE: [how this plan most likely fails -- cite items]

Phase 2: PLAN REGISTRY

After ALL extraction and evaluation is complete, compile into a structured registry. No new plans introduced here.

PLAN REGISTRY
=============

SOURCE: [skill] on [topic] at [depth]
PLANS EXTRACTED: [N]

[PLAN-1] [action statement]
  STEELMAN: [strongest case -- 1-2 sentences]
  STRENGTHS: [from source items -- cite numbers]
  WEAKNESSES: [from source items -- cite numbers]
  RISKS: [what could go wrong -- cite items]
  DEPENDENCIES: [what must be true -- cite items]
  REVERSIBILITY: [easy to undo / hard to undo / one-way door]
  COST: [what this requires -- time, money, effort, opportunity]
  GIVES UP: [what this plan forecloses -- what you can no longer do]
  FIRST ACTIONS: [concrete next steps if this plan is chosen]

[PLAN-2] ...
...

COMPARISON TABLE:
| Plan | Strengths | Weaknesses | Reversible? | Cost | Gives Up |
|------|-----------|------------|-------------|------|----------|
| PLAN-1 | [brief] | [brief] | [Y/N/Partial] | [brief] | [brief] |
| PLAN-2 | [brief] | [brief] | [Y/N/Partial] | [brief] | [brief] |
...

PLAN INTERACTIONS:
- [PLAN-X] and [PLAN-Y]: [compatible / incompatible / sequential]
- [PLAN-X] enables [PLAN-Z]: [how]
- [PLAN-X] blocks [PLAN-Z]: [how]

Phase 3: RECOMMENDATION SYNTHESIS

Derived entirely from the plan registry. No new plans or evidence introduced here.

Categorize Each Plan

Every plan gets ONE of four categories:

RECOMMENDED — Evidence strongly supports. Use this.

[PLAN-N] RECOMMENDED
  DERIVATION CHAIN:
    Source items [numbers] show [what they show]
    -> This means [intermediate conclusion]
    -> Therefore [why this plan follows]
  USE IF: [conditions where this is the right choice]
  DON'T USE IF: [conditions where this is wrong]
  FIRST ACTIONS:
    1. [specific action] -- resolves [what]
    2. [specific action] -- resolves [what]

CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED — Evidence supports under specific conditions.

[PLAN-N] CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED
  DERIVATION CHAIN:
    Source items [numbers] show [what they show]
    -> This means [intermediate conclusion]
    -> Therefore [why this plan follows WHEN conditions hold]
  CONDITION: [precise condition that must be true]
  HOW TO CHECK: [how to verify the condition]
  USE IF: [when the condition holds + what else must be true]
  DON'T USE IF: [when the condition fails + what to do instead]
  IF CONDITION UNKNOWN: [what to do to find out]
  FIRST ACTIONS:
    1. [specific action] -- resolves [what]

NOT RECOMMENDED — Evidence opposes. Don’t use this.

[PLAN-N] NOT RECOMMENDED
  STEELMAN REMINDER: [restate the strongest case -- 1-2 sentences]
  DERIVATION CHAIN:
    Source items [numbers] show [what they show]
    -> This means [intermediate conclusion]
    -> Despite the steelman, this fails because [why]
  WHY IT FAILS: [specific source items that defeat the steelman]
  WHAT WOULD CHANGE THIS VERDICT: [what new evidence would flip to RECOMMENDED]
  USE INSTEAD: [which other plan addresses the same need]

UNRESOLVED — Evidence insufficient to recommend or reject.

[PLAN-N] UNRESOLVED
  DERIVATION CHAIN:
    Source items [numbers] show [what they show]
    -> But [what's missing or contradictory]
    -> Cannot determine recommendation because [why]
  WHAT'S MISSING: [specific information needed]
  HOW TO RESOLVE: [specific actions to get that information]
  LEANS TOWARD: [which direction evidence slightly favors, if any]

Final Summary

RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY
======================

SOURCE: [skill] on [topic]

RECOMMENDED:
- [PLAN-N]: [one-line summary] -- USE IF: [brief condition]

CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED:
- [PLAN-N]: [one-line summary] -- CONDITION: [brief]

NOT RECOMMENDED:
- [PLAN-N]: [one-line summary] -- BECAUSE: [brief]
  WOULD CHANGE IF: [brief]

UNRESOLVED:
- [PLAN-N]: [one-line summary] -- NEEDS: [brief]

SUGGESTED SEQUENCE:
[If multiple plans are compatible, suggest an order]
1. [First action from highest-priority RECOMMENDED plan]
2. [Check condition for CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED plan]
3. [Resolve UNRESOLVED plans by gathering missing info]

WHAT THIS ANALYSIS DOES NOT COVER:
[Explicitly state limitations -- what /p can't tell you]

Anti-Failure Checks

Pre-Completion Check

• Source analysis identified and referenced (skill, topic, item prefix)
• All plan seeds cite source item numbers
• 3-7 plans extracted (if fewer, noted why)
• EVERY plan steelmanned (including rejected ones)
• Steelmans are genuine (not dismissive 1-liners)
• EVERY plan evaluated against source evidence (both supporting and opposing)
• EVERY plan has: strengths, weaknesses, risks, dependencies, reversibility, cost, gives up
• Comparison table complete
• Plan interactions analyzed
• EVERY recommendation has a derivation chain (source items -> intermediate conclusion -> verdict)
• EVERY recommendation has USE IF / DON’T USE IF conditions
• NOT RECOMMENDED plans include steelman reminder + what would change verdict
• UNRESOLVED plans include what’s missing + how to resolve
• No plans introduced without source item citations
• Cherry-pick check: Are there source items you ignored? If yes, check if they affect any plan.
• Strawman check: Re-read each NOT RECOMMENDED. Would a proponent feel their plan was fairly considered?
• Condition check: Are there RECOMMENDED plans that should be CONDITIONALLY RECOMMENDED? Binary confidence is suspicious.