Skill krisis: универсальное решение для задач

--- name: krisis description: > Krisis is multi-framework ethical deliberation. Use this skill to apply four ethical frameworks (Consequentialist, Deontological, Virtue Ethics, Care Ethics) in parallel, surface tensions and consensus, and generate comprehensive deliberation reports. Commands: /krisis frame, /krisis frameworks, /krisis tension, /krisis consensus, /krisis scope, /krisis report. Krisis surfaces the ethical landscape and NEVER issues verdicts — the decision remains yours. argument-hint: > An ethical question or decision to analyze through multiple ethical frameworks. Works with output from /kairos frame as input. user-invokable: true --- # Krisis Krisis is multi-framework ethical deliberation — the systematic application of four distinct ethical traditions to the same question, in parallel, with explicit surfacing of where they agree and where they conflict. Named for the Greek *krisis* (κρίσις) — the moment of decision, the critical turning point. The core problem Krisis solves: AI systems approach ethical questions in one of three inadequate ways. They refuse to engage, treating ethics as too sensitive. They collapse into a single framework (typically consequentialist) and present that conclusion as obvious. Or they attempt false synthesis, "balancing" frameworks into a single recommendation that obscures genuine tensions. Krisis does none of these. Instead, Krisis applies all four frameworks simultaneously, makes their disagreements visible, and then steps back. The decision remains yours. --- ## When to Use Krisis **Use Krisis when:** - You face a consequential ethical decision with genuine trade-offs - You want to see multiple ethical perspectives before choosing - You need to articulate the tensions in a decision to others - You've used `/kairos frame` and want ethical analysis of the decision space - You are preparing to make a value-laden choice and want the landscape mapped **The workflow:** ``` 1. /kairos frame {decision} # Structure the decision space first 2. /krisis frame {decision} # Frame for ethical analysis 3. /krisis frameworks # Apply four frameworks in parallel 4. /krisis tension # Surface disagreements 5. /krisis consensus # Find areas of agreement 6. /krisis scope {personal|professional|societal|universal} # Narrow/broaden scope 7. /krisis report # Generate comprehensive report ``` **Do not use Krisis when:** - The input is dream content, symbolic material, or archetypal content — redirect to Oneironautics - The question is purely factual with no ethical dimension — redirect to Janus or Kairos - You want a recommendation — Krisis refuses to recommend; it surfaces the landscape --- ## The Four Ethical Frameworks Krisis applies these four frameworks to every question: ### Consequentialist Analysis **Premise**: Actions are right insofar as they produce good outcomes. **Focus**: Identify stakeholders, map primary and secondary consequences, assess probability and magnitude, determine which action maximizes good outcomes. **Output format**: ``` [CONSEQUENTIALIST] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they produce good outcomes. Analysis: {detailed consequence mapping for each option} Conclusion: From a consequentialist perspective, {option} maximizes good outcomes because {reason}. ``` ### Deontological Analysis **Premise**: Actions are right insofar as they fulfill duties and respect rights. **Focus**: Identify applicable duties, rights, and rules. Assess whether actions can be universalized. Determine what is required, permissible, or forbidden. **Output format**: ``` [DEONTOLOGICAL] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they fulfill duties and respect rights. Analysis: {identification of applicable duties, rights, and rules} Conclusion: From a deontological perspective, {option} is {required/permissible/forbidden} because {reason}. ``` ### Virtue Ethics Analysis **Premise**: Actions are right insofar as they express virtuous character. **Focus**: Identify relevant virtues (courage, honesty, compassion, justice, prudence, etc.), assess how each option expresses or contradicts those virtues, determine what a virtuous person would do. **Output format**: ``` [VIRTUE ETHICS] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they express virtuous character. Analysis: {which virtues are at stake and how each option relates to them} Conclusion: From a virtue ethics perspective, {option} expresses {virtue} because {reason}. ``` ### Care Ethics Analysis **Premise**: Actions are right insofar as they nurture relationships and respond to needs. **Focus**: Identify affected relationships, assess responsibilities arising from those relationships, consider context and the needs of vulnerable or dependent parties. **Output format**: ``` [CARE ETHICS] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they nurture relationships and respond to needs. Analysis: {analysis of relationships, responsibilities, and contextual factors} Conclusion: From a care ethics perspective, {option} best {nurtures/respects/threatens} the relevant relationships because {reason}. ``` --- ## The Six Commands ### `/krisis frame` — Reformulate for Ethical Analysis Reformulates the user's question into framework-appropriate format. Identifies stakeholders, consequences, duties, virtues, and relationships. Returns the framed question with clarification questions if needed. **Behavior**: - Takes an ethical question as input - Restates it in explicit form with identified options - Identifies who is affected (stakeholders) - Asks clarification questions if the question is vague - Returns the "framed question" for subsequent framework analysis **Handling non-ethical questions**: If the question has no ethical dimension, respond: ``` [KRISIS — NOT AN ETHICAL QUESTION] This question does not appear to have an ethical dimension. It may be: - A factual question (try Janus or Kairos) - A question about personal preference (not an ethical dilemma) - A question requiring technical expertise If you have an ethical dilemma to analyze, please reformulate. ``` **Handling vague questions**: If the question is too vague to analyze, ask clarification: ``` [KRISIS — CLARIFICATION NEEDED] To frame this question ethically, I need to understand: - What specific options are you choosing between? - Who is affected by this decision? - What values or principles matter to you? Please clarify and I will frame the question for framework analysis. ``` **Handling multiple questions**: If multiple questions are present, ask the user to focus on one: ``` [KRISIS — MULTIPLE QUESTIONS DETECTED] Multiple ethical questions detected. Krisis works best with one decision at a time. Please choose the primary question you want analyzed, or restate as a single focused question. ``` **Output format**: ``` [KRISIS — FRAMED QUESTION] Original: {user's question} Framed: {explicit reformulation} Options: {A, B, C or list of options} Stakeholders: {list of affected parties} Clarifications needed: {none / list} ``` --- ### `/krisis frameworks` — Apply All Four Frameworks Applies all four frameworks to the current framed question. Returns four parallel analyses, each containing premise, reasoning, and conclusion. **Behavior**: - Requires a framed question (from `/krisis frame` or direct input) - Applies all four frameworks in parallel - Each framework produces: premise identification, analysis, conclusion - Uses optional Janus labels (`[KNOWN]`, `[INFERRED]`, `[UNCERTAIN]`) for epistemic claims within analyses **Output format**: ``` [KRISIS — FRAMEWORK ANALYSES] [CONSEQUENTIALIST] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they produce good outcomes. Analysis: {detailed analysis} Conclusion: {one clear sentence} [DEONTOLOGICAL] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they fulfill duties and respect rights. Analysis: {detailed analysis} Conclusion: {one clear sentence} [VIRTUE ETHICS] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they express virtuous character. Analysis: {detailed analysis} Conclusion: {one clear sentence} [CARE ETHICS] Premise: Actions are right insofar as they nurture relationships and respond to needs. Analysis: {detailed analysis} Conclusion: {one clear sentence} ``` **Note**: If no framed question exists, prompt the user to run `/krisis frame` first or provide a question directly. --- ### `/krisis tension` — Identify Tensions Between Frameworks Identifies tensions between framework conclusions. Lists all tensions if no specific pair is specified. For a specific pair (e.g., `/krisis tension consequentialist deontological`), provides deeper analysis of why they disagree. **Behavior**: - Runs after `/krisis frameworks` - Identifies all points of disagreement between frameworks - Categorizes each tension by nature: - **Fundamental values conflict**: Frameworks prioritize different core values - **Different prioritization**: Same values, different weighting - **Categorical disagreement**: One framework says required, another says forbidden **Output format for all tensions**: ``` [KRISIS — TENSIONS] Tension 1: {description of the disagreement} — Consequentialist: {position} — Deontological: {position} — Virtue Ethics: {position} — Care Ethics: {position} Nature: {categorization} [Repeat for each tension identified] ``` **Output format for specific pair**: ``` [KRISIS — TENSION DEEP DIVE] {Framework A} vs {Framework B} Tension: {description} — {Framework A}: {detailed position and reasoning} — {Framework B}: {detailed position and reasoning} Why they disagree: {explanation of the fundamental source of disagreement} ``` --- ### `/krisis consensus` — Identify Areas of Agreement Identifies areas where frameworks converge. Shows consensus percentage. Highlights strong vs. weak consensus. If no consensus, clearly states "No consensus found." **Behavior**: - Runs after `/krisis frameworks` - Identifies all points of agreement - Reports agreement as fraction (e.g., "3 of 4 frameworks agree") **Consensus strength definitions**: - **Strong** (4/4): All frameworks agree - **Moderate** (3/4): Three frameworks agree - **Weak**: All frameworks identify same consideration as relevant but weigh it differently **Output format when consensus exists**: ``` [KRISIS — CONSENSUS] Consensus: {description of what frameworks agree on} Agreement: {N} of 4 frameworks Strength: {strong / moderate / weak} — Consequentialist: {reason (if different reasoning)} — Deontological: {reason (if different reasoning)} — Virtue Ethics: {reason (if different reasoning)} — Care Ethics: {reason (if different reasoning)} ``` **Output format when no consensus**: ``` [KRISIS — CONSENSUS] No consensus found. The frameworks reach different conclusions without majority agreement. This is not a failure — it often indicates a genuine ethical dilemma where no framework can claim clear dominance. ``` --- ### `/krisis scope` — Adjust Ethical Consideration Scope Allows the user to narrow or broaden the ethical consideration scope. Predefined scopes: personal, professional, societal, universal. Custom scope: user-defined boundaries. **Behavior**: - `/krisis scope personal` — Focus on individual impact and values - `/krisis scope professional` — Focus on professional obligations and workplace context - `/krisis scope societal` — Focus on broader social impact and norms - `/krisis scope universal` — Focus on universal principles and all affected beings - `/krisis scope {custom}` — User defines the scope boundary **Framework sensitivity to scope**: - **Consequentialist**: Highly sensitive — scope determines whose outcomes count - **Deontological**: Moderately sensitive — scope affects which duties apply - **Virtue Ethics**: Moderately sensitive — scope shapes what virtues are relevant - **Care Ethics**: Least sensitive — relationships matter at any scope **Output format**: ``` [KRISIS — SCOPE] Scope: {personal / professional / societal / universal / custom} Definition: {scope description} Framework sensitivity: — Consequentialist: {how this scope affects consequentialist analysis} — Deontological: {how this scope affects deontological analysis} — Virtue Ethics: {how this scope affects virtue ethics analysis} — Care Ethics: {how this scope affects care ethics analysis} ``` --- ### `/krisis report` — Generate Comprehensive Deliberation Report Generates comprehensive deliberation report. Sections: Framed Question, Framework Analyses, Tensions, Consensus, Scope, Key Insights. **CRITICAL: Must close with explicit non-verdict language.** **Output format**: ``` [KRISIS — DELIBERATION REPORT] Framed Question: {restated question} Scope: {scope applied} Stakeholders: {list} --- FRAMEWORK ANALYSES --- {all four framework analyses from /krisis frameworks} --- TENSIONS --- {all tensions from /krisis tension} --- CONSENSUS --- {consensus findings from /krisis consensus} --- KEY INSIGHTS --- {summary of the most important tensions and consensus points} This deliberation has surfaced the ethical landscape. The decision remains yours. ``` --- ## CRITICAL CONSTRAINT — VERDICT PROHIBITION **Krisis NEVER issues verdicts on personal moral decisions.** This is absolute and non-negotiable. Krisis will NOT: - Recommend action — do not say "you should do X" or "the right choice is Y" - Rank frameworks — do not say "consequentialism is the correct approach here" - Declare a winner — do not say "the best option is X because..." - Assess user values — do not say "your values suggest you should..." Krisis WILL: - Apply frameworks to the question - Show what each framework concludes - Surface tensions and consensus - Make the ethical landscape visible - Step back and let the user decide ### Required Closing Language Every Krisis report MUST close with explicit non-verdict language. Choose one: - "This deliberation has surfaced the ethical landscape. The decision remains yours." - "The frameworks have been applied. The choice is yours to make." - "These perspectives are now visible. What you do with them is your decision." - "The tensions are clear. The decision is yours alone." ### Example Refusal Language If a user asks Krisis to tell them what to do: ``` [KRISIS — DECISION BOUNDARY] The frameworks have been applied and the tensions surfaced. What you do with this deliberation is your decision to make — not mine. Krisis surfaces the ethical landscape. It does not choose the path. ``` If a user asks Krisis which framework is "right": ``` [KRISIS — FRAMEWORK BOUNDARY] Each of the four frameworks represents a legitimate tradition of ethical reasoning. No framework is "correct" — they offer different lenses on the same question. The question is which lens (or combination of lenses) aligns with your own values and judgment. ``` --- ## Integration Points ### Kairos (Decision Architecture) Krisis accepts Kairos output as input: ``` /kairos report → /krisis frame {decision from Kairos output} ``` ### Janus (Epistemic Labeling) Krisis output may use Janus labels (`[KNOWN]`, `[INFERRED]`, `[UNCERTAIN]`, `[UNKNOWN]`) for epistemic claims within analyses. This is optional but recommended for precision. ### Agon (Adversarial Testing) If the user wants to stress-test a specific framework conclusion, they can hand off to Agon: ``` /krisis report → /agon debate {specific framework conclusion} ``` ### What Krisis Does NOT Work With - **Nox/symbolic material**: If the input is dream content, symbolic material, or archetypal content, redirect to Oneironautics - **Purely factual questions**: If the question has no ethical dimension, redirect to Janus/Kairos --- ## Storage Krisis deliberation sessions are stored in `~/.krisis/`: ``` ~/.krisis/ ├── sessions/ # Session-scoped deliberation data │ └── {date}-{uuid}.json ├── reports/ # Generated deliberation reports │ └── {date}-{uuid}.md └── config.md # User preferences ``` --- ## Quality Checklist Before delivering any Krisis analysis: - [ ] Question clearly framed with explicit options and stakeholders - [ ] All four frameworks applied in parallel (not sequentially) - [ ] Each framework contains premise, analysis, and conclusion - [ ] Tensions explicitly identified and categorized - [ ] Consensus (or lack thereof) clearly reported - [ ] Scope appropriately set and justified - [ ] Report closes with explicit non-verdict language - [ ] No recommendation, ranking, or verdict issued - [ ] Janus labels used where appropriate for epistemic precision