name: coherence-check description: "This skill should be used when users question their philosophical stance, their language contradicts their declared epistemology, they are moving between stages and want to verify coherence, mentions 'assumptions', 'examine', 'coherent', 'consistent', or something feels 'off' about their analytical approach."

coherence-check

Examine philosophical assumptions and check for methodological coherence. Ensures alignment between ontology, epistemology, and analytical practice.

When to Use

Use this skill when:

• User questions their philosophical stance
• User's language contradicts their declared epistemology
• Moving between stages and wanting to verify coherence
• User mentions "assumptions", "examine", "coherent"
• Something feels "off" about the analytical approach
• User asks "am I being consistent?"

What It Checks

1. Language Coherence

Are you using language consistent with your philosophical stance?

2. Method-Epistemology Alignment

Does your analytical approach match your epistemology?

3. AI Relationship Coherence

Is your AI use consistent with your stated relationship?

How It Works

The skill reviews:

1. Your declared stance in config.json
2. Recent interactions and language
3. Analytical decisions made
4. Flags tensions or confirmations

Invocation Pattern

Check the coherence of my approach:

My declared stance:
- Ontology: [from config]
- Epistemology: [from config]
- Tradition: [from config]

Recent analytical decision: [describe]

Is this coherent? What tensions exist?

Example Checks

Language Check

Check my language coherence:

Declared stance: Constructivist
In my last session, I wrote:
"Analysis revealed that participants discover their own paths..."

Is this consistent?

Response might be:

Tension detected:
- "revealed" and "discover" suggest objectivist language
- Your constructivist stance would prefer:
  "Analysis constructed an understanding that participants
  characterize their own paths..."

Consider: Is this a slip in language, or are your underlying
assumptions shifting? Both are okay, but be aware.

Method Check

Check my method coherence:

Declared epistemology: Systematic interpretation (Gioia)
Current practice: I'm not using inter-rater reliability, but I am
keeping detailed audit trails and seeking disconfirming cases.

Is this coherent with Gioia method?

AI Relationship Check

Check my AI relationship:

Declared: Epistemic partner
Current practice: I've been accepting all of @dialogical-coder's
suggestions without much questioning.

Is this coherent?

Response might be:

Tension detected:
- Epistemic partnership implies dialogue, not acceptance
- You committed to "questioning both AI outputs AND your assumptions"

Recommendation: Before accepting next suggestion, ask:
- Why does this interpretation make sense?
- What alternative readings exist?
- What would I lose if this code changed?

Output Format

Coherence Check Results
=======================

Stance Declared: [summary]

✓ Coherent:
- [aspect that aligns]
- [aspect that aligns]

⚠ Tensions Detected:
- [tension 1]: [explanation]
- [tension 2]: [explanation]

Recommendations:
- [suggestion 1]
- [suggestion 2]

Note: Tensions aren't failures - they're opportunities for
reflexive awareness. The goal is coherence, not perfection.

Integration with Hooks

The check-coherence.js hook may flag issues automatically. This skill provides deeper examination when issues arise.

Philosophical Note

Coherence doesn't mean rigidity. It means:

• Awareness of your assumptions
• Consistency between belief and practice
• Transparency about choices

If your stance is evolving, that's fine - document the evolution. The danger is unexamined drift.

Related

• Hooks: check-coherence.js (automated checking)
• Templates: epistemic-stance.md (original declarations)
• Skills: deep-reasoning for thinking through shifts