3-Pass Recursive Prompting

Run a 3-pass recursive self-critique on a given claim, diagnosis, plan, or analysis.

Input

The user provides text to analyze, either:

• Directly as an argument: /skill 3pass <text>
• As a reply to a previous message
• As context from the current conversation

If no specific text is provided, apply to the most recent substantive claim or analysis in the conversation.

Process

Pass 1: Critique 🔍

Tear the input apart. Be brutally honest. Look for:

• Logic errors — Does the reasoning actually hold? Are there leaps?
• Missing evidence — What claims are unsupported? What wasn't checked?
• Confirmation bias — Did the analysis fit a narrative instead of following evidence?
• Correlation vs causation — Are causal claims actually proven?
• Alternative explanations — What else could explain the same observations?
• Wrong assumptions — What's being taken for granted that might be false?
• Overstated confidence — Where is certainty claimed without justification?

Number each critique point. Be specific about what's wrong, not vague.

Pass 2: Refine 🛠️

For each critique point from Pass 1:

• If testable: Run the test. Use tools (exec, web_search, read files, etc.) to gather actual evidence.
• If a gap: Fill it with data, not speculation.
• If an assumption: State it explicitly and check if it holds.
• If wrong: Correct it with evidence.

This pass should involve DOING WORK, not just thinking. Run commands, check data, verify claims. The goal is to replace speculation with evidence.

Pass 3: Final Answer 🎯

Synthesize everything into a corrected, evidence-backed conclusion:

• State what was RIGHT in the original analysis
• State what was WRONG and how it was corrected
• Present the refined conclusion with confidence levels
• Flag anything that STILL can't be verified
• Give actionable next steps

Output Format

## Pass 1: Critique 🔍
[numbered critique points]

## Pass 2: Refine 🛠️
[evidence gathering and corrections - USE TOOLS HERE]

## Pass 3: Final Answer 🎯
[corrected analysis with confidence levels]

Rules

• Be genuinely critical in Pass 1, not performatively critical
• Pass 2 MUST involve actual investigation (tool calls, data checks), not just rewriting
• Pass 3 should acknowledge remaining uncertainty honestly
• If the original analysis was actually correct, say so — don't manufacture false critiques
• Each pass should be clearly separated with the headers above