Autoreason Lite

Apply a bounded multi-candidate self-refinement loop (A/B/AB + judges + do-nothing option) to improve drafts, plans, and analyses while preventing scope creep. Use when user asks to improve writing/strategy/code explanations iteratively with quality control.

Use this skill when a user asks to "improve this," "refine this," or "make this better" and quality matters more than one-shot speed.

What this does

A bounded refinement tournament:

1. A (incumbent): current draft unchanged
2. B (adversarial revision): deliberately different attempt
3. AB (synthesis): merge best parts of A and B
4. Judging pass: pick winner with explicit rubric
5. Convergence rule: stop early if A keeps winning (no-change is valid)

This reduces over-editing and drift.

Default operating profile

• Max rounds: 3
• Judges: 3 independent judge personas
• Aggregation: Borda-like ranking (1st=2 pts, 2nd=1 pt, 3rd=0)
• Convergence: stop if A wins 2 rounds (or winner unchanged 2 rounds)
• Length guardrail: output within ±15% of requested length unless user asks otherwise
• Voice lock: preserve user's tone profile (technical / founder / viral) unless asked to shift

When to use

Use for:

• Long-form writing
• Strategy memos
• Explanations/tutorial drafts
• Product copy
• Decision frameworks

Avoid for:

• Deterministic factual extraction
• Tiny edits user already specified exactly
• Time-critical one-liners unless user requests deep refinement

Execution steps

1. Clarify success criteria (tone, audience, length, goal) if missing.
2. Generate candidate B from A:
   • Must change structure or argument order (not just wording).
   • Must preserve critical facts.
3. Generate candidate AB:
   • Keep strongest parts from A and B.
   • Remove redundancy.
4. Run 3 judges independently with rubric:
   • Accuracy / faithfulness
   • Clarity
   • Usefulness for user goal
   • Concision / scope control
5. Score candidates; choose winner.
6. Repeat up to max rounds with winner as new A.
7. Return final with short “what changed + why”.

Judge prompt template

Use references/judge-rubric.md.

Output format to user

• Final refined result
• 2-4 bullets: key improvements
• Optional: one-line note if loop stopped due to convergence (no meaningful gain)

Quick presets

• Technical: precise wording, fewer claims, concrete mechanisms
• Founder: outcomes + positioning + credibility signal
• Viral: short lines, strong hooks, high readability, no fluff

Safety + quality constraints

• Never invent facts to make prose sound better.
• Keep user intent stable unless explicitly asked to pivot.
• Prefer no-change over noisy edits.
• If confidence drops, surface uncertainty instead of bluffing.