mcpField
C
crucible-navigator

crucible-navigator

github.com/terrylicaAgent workflows152 installsUpdated 1d ago
Repository

About crucible-navigator

crucible-navigator routes research agents to sub-skills for epistemics, execution, governance, or archived ideas. It also lays out a reading order and flags common research pitfalls.

Key features

  1. 01Routes intents to four research sub-skills
  2. 02Sets a reading order for new campaigns
  3. 03Flags epistemic and archive-check pitfalls
  4. 04Frames hypothesis testing as evolutionary selection

Use cases

  1. 01Assess whether a finding is reliable
  2. 02Plan hypothesis tests or parameter sweeps
  3. 03Decide whether to pivot or stop research
  4. 04Find and reassess archived ideas

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/terrylica/cc-skills --skill crucible-navigator

After installing, type/crucible-navigatorin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Bundled filesreferences/evolution-log.md

Details

From the project README

crucible-navigator — Research campaign orientation

Self-Evolving Skill: This skill improves through use. If the routing guidance is wrong (wrong skill invoked for a user intent), fix the description's TRIGGERS list and the routing table below. Append reason to references/evolution-log.md. Don't defer.

What this skill does

You are orienting an agent to research methodology. Route the agent to the right sub-skill based on what kind of research task is at hand. The four sub-skills cover epistemics (A), execution (B), decisions (C), and archive (D).

Routing table — map user intent to skill

User intent signalRoute to
"Is this finding real?", "check significance", "shuffled null", "causal feature", "label leakage"a-research-foundations
"Test a hypothesis", "sweep parameters", "multi-agent analysis", "gate validation", "per-trade analysis"b-investigation-methodology
"Should we pivot?", "ship this?", "kill or refine?", "too much context", "supersede a finding"c-meta-governance
"Check dormant ideas", "what's archived?", "resurrect this", "conditions have changed"d-emergent-resurrection

If unsure, start with A (foundations). Epistemic discipline is the hardest prerequisite.

The core genetic-evolutionary framing

Research in this plugin is treated as a population under selection:

Population ───────────> (multi-lens agents propose candidates)
    │
    ▼
Fitness ──────────────> (z-score vs shuffled null, OOS replication, kill-selectivity)
    │
    ▼
Selection ────────────> (serial adversarial gates A→B→C→D→E)
    │
    ▼
Surviving individuals ─> (champion stacked as supersedes chain in evolution.jsonl)
    │
    ▼
Mutation/Crossover ───> (agent proposes perturbations of winner; orthogonal components recombined)
    │
    ▼
Archive failures ─────> (d-emergent-resurrection preserves with resurrect_if conditions)
    │
    └──────── NEXT GENERATION ───────┐
                                     ▼
                                 (new audit folder)

A "hypothesis" is a triple: (trigger, filter_cascade, management_rule). Each component mutates independently. Crossover combines validated components from different campaigns. Failed individuals go to archive, not trash.

Reading order for a new campaign

  1. Read this file. Understand the genetic framing.
  2. Read a-research-foundations/SKILL.md. 6 epistemic disciplines.
  3. Read b-investigation-methodology/SKILL.md. 6 execution patterns. This is the workhorse.
  4. Reference c-meta-governance/SKILL.md as needed during pivots/decisions.
  5. Check d-emergent-resurrection/SKILL.md first if the hypothesis resembles an archived dead one — you might be resurrecting.

Anti-patterns

  1. Treating principles as universal from N=1 evidence. Each principle has a confirmation_count; defer to re-confirmed ones.
  2. Skipping A. Experienced agents skip epistemics — don't. The label-leakage trap, wrong-null trap, and agent-z overstatement trap all live in A.
  3. Running a new campaign without checking D. Ideas recur. Check archive before re-exploring.
  4. Writing conclusions without ledger entries. See A5 (record-keeping-discipline).

Repository landmarks

In research-lab-repo/:

  • findings/methodology/ — original 10 principle files (pre-plugin)
  • findings/evolution/evolution.jsonl — ledger of findings (append-only)
  • findings/evolution/audits/ — dated audit folders (one per campaign)
  • findings/evolution/audits/CLAUDE.md — audit index

When you're done in a session

Update references/evolution-log.md if you noticed that:

  • The routing table missed a user intent (add the row)
  • A TRIGGER keyword didn't fire on a relevant prompt (extend the description)
  • A sub-skill was weaker than expected (flag it for refinement)

Post-Execution Reflection

After invoking this skill, if the routing produced a wrong-skill-selected outcome, or if a new user-intent pattern emerged that isn't covered:

  1. Identify the gap. What did the user ask for that wasn't routed?
  2. Determine the fix. Add a new row to the routing table? Add keywords to TRIGGERS? New sub-skill needed?
  3. Apply the fix. Edit this file in-place. Append to references/evolution-log.md with: date, trigger text, what was changed, and link to the session where this came up.
  4. Never silently defer. A quiet gap is worse than a noisy one.

Comments

Markdown supported