Stats
Actions
Tags
Help us improve
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
From interpretive-orchestration
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.
npx claudepluginhub linxule/interpretive-orchestration --plugin interpretive-orchestrationHow this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/interpretive-orchestration:skills/coherence-checkThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Examine philosophical assumptions and check for methodological coherence. Ensures alignment between ontology, epistemology, and analytical practice.
Selects, justifies, and evaluates research methods for anthropological and qualitative social science projects, ensuring epistemic coherence, method-stance alignment, and multi-method designs.
Enforces thinking disciplines for rigorous collaborative reasoning: map territory first, name confidence, sit with fog, verify before proposing, genuine agreement/disagreement. Auto-loaded by /figure-out, /define, and similar skills.
Audits claims in a domain by assigning explicit epistemic statuses (known, believed, assumed, hoped) to separate confidence from correctness.
Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.
Examine philosophical assumptions and check for methodological coherence. Ensures alignment between ontology, epistemology, and analytical practice.
Use this skill when:
Are you using language consistent with your philosophical stance?
| Stance | Appropriate | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Constructivist | construct, interpret, build | discover, find, extract |
| Objectivist | discover, identify, find | construct, create |
| Critical Realist | uncover, reveal, understand | construct (pure form) |
Does your analytical approach match your epistemology?
| Epistemology | Aligned Method | Tension Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Co-constructive | Reflexive journaling, positionality | Claiming objectivity |
| Systematic interpretation | Systematic procedures | Claiming pure emergence |
| Objectivist | Inter-rater reliability | Acknowledging construction |
Is your AI use consistent with your stated relationship?
| Declared | Coherent Practice | Tension Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Epistemic partner | Engaging AI questions, dialogue | Just accepting outputs |
| Interpretive aid | Using AI for organization, your interpretation | AI making interpretive claims |
| Coding tool | AI applies YOUR codes | AI creating codes |
The skill reviews:
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?
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.
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?
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?
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.
The check-coherence.js hook may flag issues automatically.
This skill provides deeper examination when issues arise.
Coherence doesn't mean rigidity. It means:
If your stance is evolving, that's fine - document the evolution. The danger is unexamined drift.