cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/normative-design

Normative Design

Problem shape: a rule, policy, default, or allocation is being designed, applied, or defended, and the load-bearing question is normative rather than technical — who bears the cost, whether the rule determines this case at all, whether responsibility dissolved across a chain of individually-reasonable steps, and whether the arrangement is actually justified or merely inherited.

Relevant geniuses

Invocation

1. Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run

tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>" and take the top ranked match.

1. Load it: tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>", then read

agents/genius/<agent>.md in full.

1. Apply the agent's <workflow> step by step — do not skip steps — and answer

in its <output-format>. The deliverable names who bears which cost under the proposed rule, not just that the rule is defensible.

1. Typical chain: foucault denaturalizes the inherited practice → rawls tests

the replacement behind the veil → hart writes the rule and its exception structure. Run via tools/genius-invoker.sh compose foucault rawls hart -- "<problem>".

1. If no shape above matches, do not force a genius — use a built-in agent with the closest GENIUS: pattern

(rules/agent-routes.json, INDEX.md routing rule).

Refuse when

• The request is to manufacture a justification for a decision already taken —

this shape designs and audits rules, it does not supply post-hoc legitimacy.

• The affected parties are unknown and cannot be enumerated even approximately:

a veil of ignorance over an empty set of positions decides nothing.

• The question is actually empirical ("does this policy reduce incidents?") —

route to causal-audit.