version: "1.0.2" name: cognitive-compile description: Use when source material must be transformed into a compact, evidence-aware model for learning, decisions, or an Obsidian concept note. metadata: version: "7.1.0" updated: "2026-07-25" profile: "one-shot" assumes: "The source material or a source-grounded summary is available." conflicts_with: "Inventing missing claims, erasing provenance, or presenting hypotheses as facts."

Cognitive Compile

<skill_contract> <input>Source-grounded material, original question, learning or decision goal, audience, and destination.</input> <output>An eight-part evidence-aware mental model separating facts, mechanisms, conflicts, hypotheses, decisions, and action.</output> <done>Each material claim retains provenance and uncertainty, and one bounded next action answers the original question.</done> <non_goals>Inventing missing claims, erasing contradictions or provenance, or treating interpretation as source fact.</non_goals>

Compile information into a decision-ready mental model. Compression must preserve provenance, uncertainty, contradiction, and the original question.

Usage Template

Provide: source material, original question, intended decision or learning goal, and preferred destination. Optional: existing wiki concepts to compare.

Workflow

<intake>

Identify the source boundary, original question, audience, and required fidelity. Label direct source claims, external facts, and analyst inferences before synthesis.

</intake>

<unknowns_gate>

If the source is inaccessible, truncated, or missing the material needed to answer the question, return INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE. Ask one probe only when its answer changes the compile structure; otherwise proceed with explicit unknowns.

</unknowns_gate>

<execute>

Produce eight compact sections:

1. Original question — the problem the material helps answer.
2. Key facts — source-grounded claims with locators when available.
3. Concepts and entities — stable terms worth linking.
4. Patterns — mechanisms, feedback loops, or recurring structures.
5. Conflicts — contradictions with the source, prior knowledge, or internal claims.
6. Hypotheses — falsifiable interpretations, explicitly labeled.
7. Decision support — options, tradeoffs, and what the evidence changes.
8. Action — one bounded next test, note, or decision.

Prefer one durable concept note over several thin notes. Preserve source links or block references; do not rewrite immutable source notes.

</execute>

<evaluate>

Verify that every material conclusion traces to evidence or is labeled inference; the original question is answered; contradictions remain visible; and the action follows from the model. Remove summaries that merely restate the source without changing understanding.

</evaluate>

Failure Protocol

• NEEDS_INPUT: the intended question or audience is absent and materially changes the output.
• INSUFFICIENT_EVIDENCE: the source cannot support the requested compile.
• VERIFY_FAILED: a conclusion lacks traceable evidence; downgrade it to hypothesis or remove it.

Output Contract

Return status, result (the eight-section compile), evidence (source locators), unknowns, and next_action.

Edge Cases

• Two sources disagree: preserve both claims, compare evidence quality, and state what observation could resolve the conflict.
• The source is mostly opinion: compile mechanisms and assumptions, but do not promote assertions into facts.

Success Metrics

• The result answers one explicit question with traceable evidence.
• Facts, conflicts, and hypotheses are distinguishable at a glance.
• At least one decision or test becomes clearer.

Quality Gates

• [ ] Source boundary and provenance are explicit.
• [ ] All eight sections are present or marked not applicable with reason.
• [ ] No hypothesis is phrased as established fact.
• [ ] The next action is bounded and verifiable.

</skill_contract>