---
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?
| Stance | Appropriate | Avoid |
|--------|-------------|-------|
| Constructivist | construct, interpret, build | discover, find, extract |
| Objectivist | discover, identify, find | construct, create |
| Critical Realist | uncover, reveal, understand | construct (pure form) |
### 2. Method-Epistemology Alignment
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 |
### 3. AI Relationship Coherence
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 |
## 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
