Full Analysis Workflow (Codex)

---
name: check-c7376ef069ed
description: "Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis."
---

<!-- GENERATED FILE - DO NOT EDIT DIRECTLY -->
<!-- Source: integrations/_templates/ + _config/skills.yaml -->
<!-- Regenerate: make assemble-skills -->

# Full Analysis Workflow (Codex)

Full Reality Check analysis - fetch source, perform 3-stage analysis, extract claims, register to database, and validate. The flagship command for rigorous source analysis.

## Invocation

```
$check <url>
```

Note: Codex reserves `/...` for built-in commands. Use `$check` instead.

The flagship Reality Check command for rigorous source analysis.

## Prerequisites

### Environment

Set `REALITYCHECK_DATA` to point to your data repository:

```bash
export REALITYCHECK_DATA=/path/to/realitycheck-data/data/realitycheck.lance
```

The `PROJECT_ROOT` is derived from this path - all analysis files go there.

### Red Flags: Wrong Repository

**IMPORTANT**: Always write to the DATA repository, never to the framework repository.

If you see these directories, you're in the **framework** repo (wrong place for data):
- `scripts/`
- `tests/`
- `integrations/`
- `methodology/`

Stop and verify `REALITYCHECK_DATA` is set correctly.

### Data Source of Truth

**LanceDB is the source of truth**, not YAML files.

- Query sources: `rc-db source get <id>` or `rc-db source list`
- Query claims: `rc-db claim get <id>` or `rc-db claim list`
- Search: `rc-db search "query"`

**Ignore YAML files** like `claims/registry.yaml` or `reference/sources.yaml` - these are exports/legacy format.

## Workflow Steps

1. **Fetch** - Retrieve and parse source content
   - Primary: `WebFetch` for most URLs
   - Alternative: `curl -L -sS "URL" | rc-html-extract - --format json`
   - `rc-html-extract` returns structured `{title, published, text, headings, word_count}`
   - Use the extract tool when you need clean metadata or main text extraction
2. **Metadata** - Extract title, author, date, type, generate source-id
3. **Stage 1: Descriptive** - Neutral summary, key claims, argument structure
4. **Stage 2: Evaluative** - Evidence quality, fact-checking, disconfirming evidence
5. **Stage 3: Dialectical** - Steelman, counterarguments, synthesis
6. **Extract** - Format claims as YAML
7. **Register** - Add source and claims to database
8. **Validate** - Run integrity checks
9. **README** - Update data project analysis index
10. **Commit** - Stage and commit changes to data repo
11. **Push** - Push to remote
12. **Report** - Generate summary

---

## Analysis Output Contract

Every analysis must produce a **human-auditable analysis** file at:
`PROJECT_ROOT/analysis/sources/<source-id>.md`

The analysis **must** include:

1. **Metadata** (Source ID, URL, author, date/type)
2. **Legends** (top-of-file quick reference)
3. **Three-stage analysis** (Stages 1-3)
4. **Claim tables with evidence + credence**
5. **Extracted claims artifact** (embedded YAML or separate file)

If an analysis lacks claim tables (IDs, evidence levels, credence) it is **not complete**.

### Required Elements

**Stage 1 (Descriptive)**:
- Source Metadata table
- Core Thesis (1-3 sentences)
- Key Claims table (with Verified? and Falsifiable By columns)
- Argument Structure diagram
- Theoretical Lineage
- Scope & Limitations

**Stage 2 (Evaluative)**:
- Key Factual Claims Verified (with Crux? column)
- Disconfirming Evidence Search
- Internal Tensions / Self-Contradictions
- Persuasion Techniques
- Unstated Assumptions
- Evidence Assessment
- Credence Assessment

**Stage 3 (Dialectical)**:
- Steelmanned Argument
- Strongest Counterarguments
- Supporting Theories (with source IDs)
- Contradicting Theories (with source IDs)
- Synthesis Notes
- Claims to Cross-Reference

**End**:
- Claim Summary table (all claims)
- Claims to Register (YAML)
- Credence in Analysis (0.0-1.0)

---

## Analysis Template

Use this structure for analysis documents:

```markdown
# Source Analysis: [Title]

> **Claim types**: `[F]` fact, `[T]` theory, `[H]` hypothesis, `[P]` prediction, `[A]` assumption, `[C]` counterfactual, `[S]` speculation, `[X]` contradiction
> **Evidence**: **E1** systematic review/meta-analysis; **E2** peer-reviewed/official stats; **E3** expert consensus/preprint; **E4** credible journalism/industry; **E5** opinion/anecdote; **E6** unsupported/speculative

## Metadata

| Field | Value |
|-------|-------|
| **Source ID** | [author-year-shorttitle] |
| **Title** | [extracted from source] |
| **Author(s)** | [name(s)] |
| **Date** | [YYYY-MM-DD or YYYY] |
| **Type** | [PAPER/ARTICLE/BLOG/REPORT/INTERVIEW/etc.] |
| **URL** | [source URL] |
| **Reliability** | [0.0-1.0] |
| **Rigor Level** | [SPITBALL/DRAFT/REVIEWED/CANONICAL] |

## Stage 1: Descriptive Analysis

### Core Thesis
[1-3 sentence summary of main argument]

### Key Claims

| # | Claim | Claim ID | Type | Domain | Evid | Credence | Verified? | Falsifiable By |
|---|-------|----------|------|--------|------|----------|-----------|----------------|
| 1 | [claim text] | DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN | [F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X] | DOMAIN | E1-E6 | 0.00-1.00 | [source or ?] | [what would refute] |
| 2 | | | | | | | | |
| 3 | | | | | | | | |

**Column guide**:
- **Claim**: Concise statement of the claim
- **Claim ID**: Format `DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN` (e.g., TECH-2026-001)
- **Type**: `[F]` fact, `[T]` theory, `[H]` hypothesis, `[P]` prediction, `[A]` assumption, `[C]` counterfactual, `[S]` speculation, `[X]` contradiction
- **Domain**: Primary domain code (TECH/LABOR/ECON/GOV/SOC/RESOURCE/TRANS/GEO/INST/RISK/META)
- **Evid**: Evidence level E1-E6
- **Credence**: Probability estimate 0.00-1.00
- **Verified?**: Source reference if verified, `?` if unverified
- **Falsifiable By**: What evidence would refute this claim

### Argument Structure

[Is this a chain argument? What's the logical flow?]

```
[Claim A]
    | implies
    v
[Claim B]
    | requires
    v
[Claim C]
    | leads to
    v
[Conclusion]
```

**Chain Analysis** (if applicable):
- **Weakest Link**: [Which step?]
- **Why Weak**: [Explanation]
- **If Link Breaks**: [What happens to conclusion?]
- **Alternative Paths**: [Can conclusion be reached differently?]

### Theoretical Lineage

[What traditions/thinkers does this build on?]

- **Primary influences**: [List key thinkers, schools of thought]
- **Builds on**: [Specific theories or frameworks this extends]
- **Departs from**: [Where this diverges from its intellectual predecessors]
- **Novel contributions**: [What's genuinely new here]

### Scope & Limitations
[What does this source attempt to explain? What does it explicitly not address?]

## Stage 2: Evaluative Analysis

### Internal Coherence
[Does the argument follow logically? Any contradictions?]

### Key Factual Claims Verified

> **Requirement**: Must include >=1 **crux claim** (central to thesis), not just peripheral numerics.

| Claim (paraphrased) | Crux? | Source Says | Actual | External Source | Status |
|---------------------|-------|-------------|--------|-----------------|--------|
| [e.g., "China makes 50% of X"] | N | [assertion] | [verified value] | [URL/ref] | ok / x / ? |
| [e.g., "Elite consensus on Y"] | **Y** | [assertion] | [verified or ?] | [URL/ref] | ok / x / ? |

**Column guide**:
- **Claim**: Paraphrased factual claim from the source
- **Crux?**: Is this claim central to the argument? Mark crux claims with **Y**
- **Source Says**: What the source asserts
- **Actual**: What verification found (or `?` if unverified)
- **External Source**: URL or reference used for verification
- **Status**: `ok` = verified, `x` = refuted, `?` = unverified

### Disconfirming Evidence Search

> For top 2-3 claims, actively search for counterevidence or alternative explanations (even 5 min changes behavior).

| Claim | Counterevidence Found | Alternative Explanation | Search Notes |
|-------|----------------------|-------------------------|--------------|
| [top claim 1] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |
| [top claim 2] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |
| [top claim 3] | [what contradicts it, or "none found"] | [other way to explain the data] | [what you searched] |

**Purpose**: Combat confirmation bias by explicitly searching for evidence against the source's claims.

### Internal Tensions / Self-Contradictions

| Tension | Parts in Conflict | Implication |
|---------|-------------------|-------------|
| [description of tension] | [Premise A] vs [Conclusion B] | [what it means for validity] |
| | | |

**Purpose**: Identify logical inconsistencies within the source's own argument.

### Persuasion Techniques

| Technique | Example from Source | Effect on Reader |
|-----------|---------------------|------------------|
| [e.g., Composition fallacy] | [quote or paraphrase] | [how it biases interpretation] |
| [e.g., Appeal to authority] | [quote or paraphrase] | [how it biases interpretation] |
| | | |

**Common techniques to watch for**:
- Composition/division fallacies
- Appeal to authority/emotion
- Cherry-picking data
- Motte-and-bailey
- Strawmanning alternatives
- False dichotomies
- Weasel words / hedging
- Anchoring with extreme examples

### Unstated Assumptions

| Assumption | Claim ID | Critical? | Problematic? |
|------------|----------|-----------|--------------|
| [assumption text] | [which claim depends on this] | Y/N | Y/N |
| | | | |

**Column guide**:
- **Assumption**: The unstated premise underlying the argument
- **Claim ID**: Which claim(s) depend on this assumption
- **Critical?**: Would the argument fail if this assumption is false?
- **Problematic?**: Is this assumption questionable or likely false?

**Purpose**: Surface hidden premises that may not be shared by all readers.

### Evidence Assessment
[Quality and relevance of supporting evidence]

### Credence Assessment
- **Overall Credence**: [0.0-1.0]
- **Reasoning**: [why this level?]

## Stage 3: Dialectical Analysis

### Steelmanned Argument
[Strongest possible version of this position]

### Strongest Counterarguments
1. [Counter + source if available]
2. [Counter + source if available]

### Supporting Theories

| Theory/Framework | Source ID | How It Supports |
|------------------|-----------|-----------------|
| [theory name] | [source-id] | [brief explanation of alignment] |
| | | |

### Contradicting Theories

| Theory/Framework | Source ID | Point of Conflict |
|------------------|-----------|-------------------|
| [theory name] | [source-id] | [brief explanation of conflict] |
| | | |

**Purpose**: Place this source in the broader theoretical landscape. Link to existing analyses where available.

### Synthesis Notes
[How does this update our overall understanding?]

### Claims to Cross-Reference
[Which claims should be checked against other sources?]

---

### Claim Summary

| ID | Type | Domain | Evidence | Credence | Claim |
|----|------|--------|----------|----------|-------|
| DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN | [F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X] | DOMAIN | E1-E6 | 0.00 | [claim text] |

**Notes**:
- All claims extracted from the source should appear in this table
- Use this for the complete claim inventory
- Key Claims table (above) highlights the most significant claims with additional columns

### Claims to Register

\`\`\`yaml
claims:
  - id: "DOMAIN-YYYY-NNN"
    text: "[Precise claim statement]"
    type: "[F/T/H/P/A/C/S/X]"
    domain: "[DOMAIN]"
    evidence_level: "E[1-6]"
    credence: 0.XX
    operationalization: "[How to test/measure this claim]"
    assumptions: ["..."]
    falsifiers: ["What would refute this"]
    source_ids: ["[source-id]"]
\`\`\`

---

**Analysis Date**: [YYYY-MM-DD]
**Analyst**: [human/claude/gpt/etc.]
**Credence in Analysis**: [0.0-1.0]

**Credence Reasoning**:
- [Why this credence level?]
- [What would increase/decrease credence?]
- [Key uncertainties remaining]
```

---

## Evidence Hierarchy

Use this hierarchy to rate **strength of evidential support** for claims.

| Level | Strength | Description | Credence Range |
|-------|----------|-------------|----------------|
| **E1** | Strong Empirical | Systematic review, meta-analysis, replicated experiments | 0.9-1.0 |
| **E2** | Moderate Empirical | Single peer-reviewed study, official statistics | 0.6-0.8 |
| **E3** | Strong Theoretical | Expert consensus, working papers, preprints | 0.5-0.7 |
| **E4** | Weak Theoretical | Industry reports, credible journalism | 0.3-0.5 |
| **E5** | Opinion/Forecast | Personal observation, anecdote, expert opinion | 0.2-0.4 |
| **E6** | Unsupported | Pure speculation, unfalsifiable claims | 0.0-0.2 |

## Claim Types

| Type | Symbol | Definition |
|------|--------|------------|
| Fact | `[F]` | Empirically verified, consensus reality |
| Theory | `[T]` | Coherent explanatory framework with empirical support |
| Hypothesis | `[H]` | Testable proposition, awaiting evidence |
| Prediction | `[P]` | Future-oriented claim with specified conditions |
| Assumption | `[A]` | Underlying premise (stated or unstated) |
| Counterfactual | `[C]` | Alternative scenario for comparison |
| Speculation | `[S]` | Unfalsifiable or untestable claim |
| Contradiction | `[X]` | Identified logical inconsistency |

## Domain Codes

| Code | Description |
|------|-------------|
| TECH | Technology, AI capabilities, tech trajectories |
| LABOR | Employment, automation, human work |
| ECON | Value theory, pricing, distribution, ownership |
| GOV | Governance, policy, regulation |
| SOC | Social structures, culture, behavior |
| RESOURCE | Scarcity, abundance, allocation |
| TRANS | Transition dynamics, pathways |
| GEO | International relations, state competition |
| INST | Institutions, organizations |
| RISK | Risk assessment, failure modes |
| META | Claims about the framework/analysis itself |

## Credence Calibration

To maintain well-calibrated credence:

| Range | Interpretation |
|-------|----------------|
| 0.9-1.0 | Would bet significant resources; very strong evidence |
| 0.7-0.8 | High credence but acknowledge meaningful uncertainty |
| 0.5-0.6 | Genuine uncertainty; could go either way |
| 0.3-0.4 | Lean against but not high credence |
| 0.1-0.2 | Strongly doubt but can't rule out |
| 0.0-0.1 | Would bet heavily against; extraordinary evidence needed |

**Aggregation notes**:
- A theory with many 0.7 credence claims is not itself 0.7 credence
- Credence in overall theory depends on logical structure and weakest critical links
- Chain arguments: overall credence <= weakest link
- Explicitly model dependencies when possible

---

## Database Commands

Use installed commands if available, otherwise fall back to uv:

```bash
# Check database stats
rc-db stats
# or: uv run python scripts/db.py stats

# Register source
rc-db source add \
  --id "SOURCE_ID" \
  --title "TITLE" \
  --type "TYPE" \
  --author "AUTHOR" \
  --year YEAR \
  --url "URL"

# Register claim
rc-db claim add \
  --id "CLAIM_ID" \
  --text "CLAIM_TEXT" \
  --type "[TYPE]" \
  --domain "DOMAIN" \
  --evidence-level "EX" \
  --credence 0.XX \
  --source-ids "SOURCE_ID"

# Search claims
rc-db search "query" --limit 10

# Get specific record
rc-db claim get CLAIM_ID
rc-db source get SOURCE_ID

# List records
rc-db claim list --domain TECH
rc-db source list --type ARTICLE
```

### Validation

```bash
rc-validate
# or: uv run python scripts/validate.py
```

### Export

```bash
rc-export yaml claims -o claims.yaml
rc-export markdown source SOURCE_ID -o source.md
```

---

## Update README (REQUIRED)

After registration and validation, update the data project's README.md:

### 1. Add Source Analyses Table Entry

**Edit `$PROJECT_ROOT/README.md` now.** Find the "Source Analyses" table and insert a new row:

```markdown
| YYYY-MM-DD | [Title](analysis/sources/<source-id>.md) | `[REVIEWED]` | Brief summary |
```

Insert at the **top** of the table (below header row), keeping entries reverse-chronological.

### 2. Update Stats Tables

Run the stats update script to refresh claim/source counts:

```bash
# From the realitycheck framework directory
scripts/update-readme-stats.sh "$PROJECT_ROOT"
# or: bash scripts/update-readme-stats.sh "$(dirname "$REALITYCHECK_DATA")"
```

This updates the "Current Status" and "Claim Domains" tables automatically.

---

## Commit and Push (REQUIRED)

**You MUST commit and push after every successful analysis.** This is not optional.

```bash
# From the data project root
cd "$(dirname "$REALITYCHECK_DATA")"

# Stage all changes
git add data/ analysis/ tracking/ README.md claims/ reference/

# Commit with descriptive message
git commit -m "data: add [source-id] - [brief description]"

# Push to remote
git push
```

**Do not stop until changes are committed and pushed.** The analysis is incomplete without version control.

---

## Continuation Mode

When using `--continue` on an existing analysis:

1. **Find existing analysis**: Look for `analysis/sources/[source-id].md`
2. **Read current state**: Load the existing analysis and registered claims
3. **Iterate, don't overwrite**: Add to the existing analysis rather than replacing it
4. **Focus areas**:
   - Extract claims that were skipped or noted as "TODO"
   - Deepen specific sections (more counterfactuals, stronger steelman)
   - Add evidence that was found after initial analysis
   - Address questions or gaps identified in the original pass
   - Cross-reference with newly added claims in the database
5. **Preserve content**: Append new sections, update claim counts, note what changed

---

## Related Skills

- `$search`
- `$validate`
- `$stats`