linxule/interpretive-orchestration/coherence-check

Trust tier 3
  • community
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

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.

Install

npx vskill@latest install linxule/interpretive-orchestration/coherence-check

SKILL.md

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?

StanceAppropriateAvoid
Constructivistconstruct, interpret, builddiscover, find, extract
Objectivistdiscover, identify, findconstruct, create
Critical Realistuncover, reveal, understandconstruct (pure form)
2. Method-Epistemology Alignment

Does your analytical approach match your epistemology?

EpistemologyAligned MethodTension Flag
Co-constructiveReflexive journaling, positionalityClaiming objectivity
Systematic interpretationSystematic proceduresClaiming pure emergence
ObjectivistInter-rater reliabilityAcknowledging construction
3. AI Relationship Coherence

Is your AI use consistent with your stated relationship?

DeclaredCoherent PracticeTension Flag
Epistemic partnerEngaging AI questions, dialogueJust accepting outputs
Interpretive aidUsing AI for organization, your interpretationAI making interpretive claims
Coding toolAI applies YOUR codesAI creating codes

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

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 90 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewPassed

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

Popularity

7-day trend score
0

Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/linxule/interpretive-orchestration/coherence-check/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/linxule/interpretive-orchestration/coherence-check)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.