Yao Crux Skill

Yao Crux Skill

Use this skill to first clarify the user's current situation, then turn it into a principal-contradiction diagnosis, a secondary-contradiction watchlist, a focused action plan, and a four-format report bundle.

Use This Skill For

• ask concise follow-up questions before judging a user's current situation
• assess whether the user's current situation is clear enough for diagnosis before naming the principal contradiction
• produce a confirmable current-state snapshot with goal, facts, stage, resources, constraints, stakeholders, and repeated patterns
• identify goals, stage, constraints, facts, stakeholders, resources, and repeated conflict patterns
• rewrite messy symptoms as candidate contradictions in the form 力量A 与 力量B 的冲突
• run a first-principles layer scan so the principal contradiction can be an upstream, not-yet-visible constraint rather than the loudest symptom
• use the three plain principal-contradiction checks: 决定性, 牵引性, and 阶段性
• separate internal changeable structures from external hard conditions, then judge how external conditions act through internal structure
• use Bayesian-style evidence updates and Ockham-razor parsimony as supporting checks when candidate contradictions are close
• score principal and secondary contradictions by goal impact, causal leverage, stage urgency, resource constraint, changeability, spillover risk, and evidence strength
• identify the principal aspect inside the principal contradiction
• recommend 1-3 breakthrough actions that explicitly weaken or reverse the principal aspect, monitoring thresholds, review conditions, and probability projections after action
• make resource and attention allocation decisive when the principal contradiction is clear, typically concentrating 50%-70% of high-leverage resources on the main line
• include visual reasoning modules: analysis flow, iceberg model, contradiction decision matrix, resource allocation, and stage transition map
• write user-facing reports that explicitly use 主要矛盾 and 次要矛盾, while translating them with practical labels such as 最关键的卡点 and 先不主攻，但要盯住
• export synchronized markdown, html, docx, and pdf reports using the Kami-style layout rules in this package

Do Not Route Here

• generic explanation of 矛盾论 with no concrete user case
• historical, ideological, or textual commentary where no diagnosis or action report is needed
• broad brainstorming that does not require a principal/secondary contradiction conclusion
• final professional medical, legal, investment, safety-critical, or psychological-crisis advice

Default Workflow

1. Read references/intake-and-questioning.md; extract the user's target, stage, constraints, resources, facts, stakeholders, and previous attempts.
2. Run the current-state gate from references/intake-and-questioning.md or scripts/current_state_clarity.py; score clarity before diagnosis.
3. If clarity is insufficient, do not name a principal contradiction. Ask no more than 3 decisive questions and stop.
4. If clarity is workable, produce a provisional current-state snapshot, ask the missing questions, and label any contradiction read as provisional.
5. If clarity is clear, restate the current-state snapshot and ask the user to confirm or correct it before deep diagnosis.
6. Run references/safety-and-boundaries.md; hard constraints remain guardrails even when they are not the principal contradiction.
7. Read references/theory-anchors.md; use 决定性, 牵引性, and 阶段性 as the plain-language front gate before detailed scoring.
8. Use the first-principles gate in references/contradiction-model.md: separate visible symptoms from the hidden root variable that can explain several symptoms together.
9. Separate 内部可改变结构, 外部硬条件, and 外因通过内因起作用; do not mistake an external condition for the principal contradiction when an internal response path is available.
10. Build 3-7 candidate contradictions, including at least one upstream candidate if the visible symptoms share a common cause.
11. Score candidates with the weighted model; use Bayesian-style updates to ask which explanation fits the evidence best.
12. Apply Ockham razor only as a supporting tie-breaker: prefer the explanation that covers more symptoms with fewer extra assumptions.
13. If the top contradiction is below 3.5/5 or the evidence is too weak, return a provisional read and ask for the missing evidence instead of over-claiming.
14. Identify the principal contradiction, its principal aspect, secondary contradictions, defer reasons, monitor triggers, and review conditions.
15. Tie each breakthrough action to the principal aspect: say whether it weakens the currently dominant side, strengthens the weaker side, or changes their relationship.
16. Reallocate resources aggressively when evidence is sufficient: protect the main line, cap secondary contradictions, and keep only minimal stop-loss capacity for monitored risks.
17. Build a canonical report input JSON using templates/crux-report.schema.json, including visual and dynamic-stage fields when available.
18. Run scripts/generate_report_bundle.py input_file.json output_dir for synchronized Markdown, HTML, Word, PDF, and .report.json artifacts.
19. Check the bundle with scripts/verify_report_bundle.py output_dir before claiming completion.
20. For HTML/PDF delivery, perform a visual pass on the conclusion, current-state tables, iceberg, decision matrix, and stage-transition sections. Reject the output if the content container width drifts away from the top navigation width, or if there is horizontal overflow, clipped legends, overlapping labels, empty chart space, or decorative imagery that does not explain the analysis.