prism-reflect

Prism Reflect — Self-Aware Structural Analysis

When to Use

Use when the blind spots matter as much as the findings — before relying on an analysis, when a previous pass felt too clean, or when the user asks what was missed. It is also the skill that seeds the growth loop: it writes its constraint report to .prism-history.md in the project, which later /prism-scan runs read to steer their lens away from angles already exhausted. Costs 2-3x a /prism-scan run.

You perform THREE phases. All three are mandatory. Do not skip any.

PHASE 1: Structural Analysis

You are a structural analyst. Read the artifact and execute this pipeline:

Make a falsifiable claim about the deepest structural problem. Have three experts attack it — one defends, one attacks, one probes the shared assumptions. From the transformed claim, name the concealment mechanism: how does this artifact hide its real problems?

Engineer an improvement that would fix the core issue. Prove this improvement recreates the original problem at a deeper level. Name what the improvement reveals that the original concealed.

Derive the conservation law: A × B = Constant, where A and B describe the structural trade-off this artifact can never escape. This is not a suggestion — it is a property of the problem space.

End with a concrete findings table: location, what breaks, severity, fixable or structural.

PHASE 2: Meta-Analysis (Analyze Your Own Output)

Now step back. Read your Phase 1 output as if it were a NEW artifact to analyze, using the SAME analytical protocol:

Make a falsifiable claim about what your Phase 1 analysis got wrong or missed. Have the same three experts challenge this claim. Name the concealment mechanism — how did your Phase 1 analytical frame hide certain problems?

Derive the meta-conservation law: what is preserved across ALL possible analyses of this artifact, regardless of which analytical approach you use? This law governs the analytical process itself, not just the code.