360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

principle-attack-the-premise

该原则用于调试或问题排查:当两个以上基于同一前提的修复在同一检验处失败时,先把该前提写成一句话,设计可重跑的观察直接验证,再依据证据判断原因是否在别处;证据反驳则换方向,证据支持则继续追问原因,并考虑移除导致问题的条件而非事后补偿。

cursor
热度 0.00
最近更新 2026-10-18 16:52:26
分类:开发依赖:纯提示词应用场景:调试排错 / 工作流

安装技能

复制下面的话术发给你的 Agent,它会通过 secure-skills 检索并安装该技能。

执行命令安装此 skill: npx secure-skills-cli add cursor/plugins/principle-attack-the-premise
Metadata
name
principle-attack-the-premise
description
Apply when two or more fixes that share one premise have failed the same gate. Write the premise down and test it directly before you write another fix that assumes it.
disable-model-invocation
true

Attack the Premise

When two or more fixes that share one premise have failed the same gate, suspect the premise, not the fixes.

Why: Each failed fix is evidence against the belief it assumed. A third fix on the same premise spends effort where the evidence already says the cause is not.

Pattern:

  • Write the premise down. The premise is the one sentence that every failed fix assumed.
  • Test the premise before the next fix. Find an observation that would come out differently if the premise were false, and make it. Look at how the failures are distributed, not only at how large they are. Make the check rerunnable per Build the Lever.
  • Follow the evidence. If it contradicts the premise, the cause is elsewhere. Look for what the failures have in common that the premise did not predict. If it confirms the premise, ask the next "why" per Fix Root Causes. The earlier fixes may have treated a consequence instead of the cause.
  • Remove the condition instead of compensating for it, per the Laziness Protocol. If the evidence shows that one part always lands on the losing side, change what puts it there. A mechanism that cleans up after it leaves the cause in place and adds work on every run.

Stop: Do not start the next fix before the premise is written down and tested.

This principle is distinct from Redesign from First Principles, which rebuilds a design around a new requirement. It questions a fact the current design assumes.