name: realitycheck-analyze description: Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.
Manual 3-Stage Analysis
Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use for manual analysis without automatic database registration.
When This Skill Activates
- •"Analyze this source"
- •"Do a 3-stage analysis"
- •"Manual analysis of"
Perform a full 3-stage analysis following the Reality Check methodology. Use this for manual analysis when you want to review claims before registering them.
Prerequisites
Environment
Set REALITYCHECK_DATA to point to your data repository:
export REALITYCHECK_DATA=/path/to/realitycheck-data/data/realitycheck.lance
The PROJECT_ROOT is derived from this path - all analysis files go there.
CLI Commands
Reality Check provides CLI tools (rc-db, rc-validate, rc-export, rc-embed).
Check availability:
which rc-db # Should show path if pip-installed
If commands are not found, either:
- •Install:
pip install realitycheck(recommended) - •Use
uv runfrom framework directory:uv run python scripts/db.py ... - •Add framework as submodule and use:
.framework/scripts/db.py ...
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>orrc-db source list - •Query claims:
rc-db claim get <id>orrc-db claim list - •Search:
rc-db search "query"
Ignore YAML files like claims/registry.yaml or reference/sources.yaml - these are exports/legacy format.
Fetching Content
To retrieve and parse source content:
- •Primary:
WebFetchfor most URLs - •Alternative:
curl -L -sS "URL" | rc-html-extract - --format json - •
rc-html-extractreturns structured{title, published, text, headings, word_count}
Methodology
Stage 1: Descriptive Analysis
- •Summarize the source neutrally
- •Extract key claims, predictions, and assumptions
- •Identify theoretical lineage (what traditions/thinkers it builds on)
- •Map argument structure (chain arguments, logical flow)
- •Note scope and domain (what does this attempt to explain?)
- •Define key terms with operational proxies
Stage 2: Evaluative Analysis
- •Assess internal coherence and logical consistency
- •Evaluate evidence quality using Evidence Hierarchy (E1-E6)
- •Verify key factual claims (especially crux claims)
- •Search for disconfirming evidence (5 min minimum)
- •Check for internal tensions/self-contradictions
- •Note persuasion techniques and rhetorical devices
- •Identify unstated assumptions and dependencies
- •Flag unfalsifiable claims
Stage 3: Dialectical Analysis
- •Steelman the strongest version of the argument
- •Identify strongest counterarguments and counterfactuals
- •Consider base rates and historical analogs
- •Map relationships to other theories (supporting/contradicting)
- •Synthesize: where does this fit in the broader landscape?
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 |
Output
Generate:
- •Analysis document following the 3-stage methodology
- •Extracted claims formatted for database registration
Rigor contract (v1):
- •Claim tables should include
Layer,Actor,Scope, andQuantifierfields (seedocs/WORKFLOWS.md→ “Analysis Rigor Contract (v1)”). - •Include a
Corrections & Updatessection (including capture failures and recency checks) for auditability.
After analysis, register manually:
rc-db source add --id "..." --title "..." --type "..." --author "..." --year YYYY --url "..." rc-db claim add --id "..." --text "..." --type "[F]" --domain "..." --evidence-level "E2" --credence 0.XX --source-ids "..."
Or use $check for fully automated analysis + registration.
Related Skills
- •
realitycheck-check - •
realitycheck-extract