360 Secure SkillHub
360 安全技能中心

Autoreason Lite

对写作、方案与解释类草稿执行最多3轮的改进循环：保留原稿A，生成对抗修订B与合成AB，由3个评审角色按准确、清晰、有用、简洁打分并以类Borda排序选出胜者；原稿连续胜出时提前停止，以保证无改动也是有效结果。

cwheeler67
cwheeler67
热度 36.31
最近更新 2026-05-11 17:43:10
分类：效率依赖：内部调用大模型应用场景：工作流 / 文案创作 / 校对润色 / 概念解释

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 autoreason-lite
Metadata
name
autoreason-lite
description
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.

Autoreason Lite

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.