← 返回 Skills 市场
deciqai

Occam's Razor

作者 deciqAI · GitHub ↗ · v1.0.0 · MIT-0
cross-platform ✓ 安全检测通过
23
总下载
0
收藏
0
当前安装
1
版本数
在 OpenClaw 中安装
/install occams-razor
功能描述
Activate when: user says 'simplify this', 'which is more likely', 'are we overcomplicating this?', 'what's the most likely explanation?', or presents multipl...
使用说明 (SKILL.md)

Occam's Razor

Overview

When several explanations all fit the evidence, prefer the one that assumes the least. It is a selection heuristic, not a proof — it tells you what to bet on first, pending evidence that can tell the candidates apart.

This is one of three composable motions in the deciqAI collection: first-principles decomposes downward to irreducible bedrock; occams-razor chooses sideways among the competing accounts; second-order-thinking traces forward through time and consequence. Compose: reduce to bedrock (first-principles), pick the simplest fitting hypothesis (here), then trace where that pick leads (second-order).

When to Use

Apply when: multiple explanations/designs/diagnoses need ranking; a proposal keeps accreting special cases; someone says "simplify this," "which is more likely," "are we overcomplicating this?"

When NOT: candidates don't equally fit the evidence (establish fit first); only one option exists; applying it would drop a known datum (over-shaving); cost of being wrong dwarfs cost of one extra assumption.

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

Two delivery modes — pick one: Engine mode (user has concrete options → run full Parsimony Audit directly). Coach mode (user signals unfamiliarity → guide step by step). Unsure? Ask: "Want me to run this on specific options, or walk you through the method?"

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output that step's question and nothing more.

  1. One-line what-it-is. When several explanations fit the evidence, the razor picks the one that assumes the least — counting unsupported assumptions, not words. It selects what to bet on; it doesn't prove what's true.
  2. Check fit. Match their situation against When to Use / When NOT. If it doesn't fit, say so and point elsewhere.
  3. Elicit their real options. Ask for ≥2 concrete candidates that actually fit the evidence.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. One step at a time. Walk the Process one step per turn — enumerate candidates with them, apply the fit gate, count assumption loads — wait for input before advancing.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Close by naming the payoff. Name which candidate they chose, the unsupported assumption that sank the loser, and the observation that would overturn the call.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Run the Parsimony Audit — fit before simplicity, count assumptions not words.

  1. State the question and enumerate candidates. List competing explanations/designs (need ≥2 — with one the razor does not apply).
  2. Fit gate. Confirm each candidate accounts for all known evidence/requirements. Drop any that don't. The razor only chooses among explanations that fit.
  3. Count the assumption load. For each survivor, list assumptions/entities not independently supported by evidence. Count those — not lines, not words.
  4. Compare and prefer. Choose the candidate with the fewest unsupported assumptions.
  5. Over-shave check. Does the preferred candidate still fit all evidence? If preferring "simple" dropped a datum, restore the necessary entity.
  6. Hold it as a prior, not a verdict. Name the specific observation that would overturn the preference.

Output: the Parsimony Audit

# Parsimony Audit: \x3Cquestion>
## Candidates:  A: \x3C...>  B: \x3C...>
## Fit check:   A fits all evidence? \x3Cyes/no>  B fits? \x3Cyes/no>
## Assumption load:  A requires: \x3Clist> → count  B requires: \x3Clist> → count
## Preferred:   \x3Cfewest unsupported assumptions>
## Over-shave check: \x3Cpreferred still fits everything?>
## What would overturn this: \x3Cdistinguishing evidence>

→ Method in Action: Wegener and Continental Drift (1912)

Audit Packs

Domain-specific capture of: (a) valid candidates, (b) what counts as unsupported assumption, (c) fake-simplicity moves the domain habitually accepts.

Software incident triage: candidates = failure-mode hypotheses; unsupported = any posited failure the logs don't corroborate; classic fake = "must be the network" while cache TTL data was on screen.

Clinical differential: candidates = differentials; unsupported = pathologies disagreeing with labs; classic fake = preferring common over rare even when labs make rare fit better.

Adding an audit pack for your domain is the easiest way to contribute — one self-contained file. See the contribution template at the repo root.

Applying the Razor Well

  • Count entities, not syllables. "It's the network" posits an unobserved failure; "cache TTL expired at 14:03, as logs show" is longer but assumes less. Parsimony is about unsupported posits, not brevity.
  • Fit is a gate, not a tiebreaker. Simplicity only adjudicates among accounts that already explain everything.
  • The razor ranks; evidence decides. Output is "look here first" + "here's what would change my mind" — never "therefore true."
  • Accretion is a smell. A new epicycle for every new fact means re-examine the base account, not keep patching.

→ Sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

Note — [D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake move Reality
[D] "It's simpler, so it's true" The razor is a preference among fitting explanations, not a proof. Picks where to look first, not what is.
[D] Using the razor to dismiss complexity the evidence requires If a datum needs the extra entity, cutting it is over-shaving. Fit before simplicity, always.
[D] "Simpler" = fewer words / shorter to state Parsimony counts unsupported assumptions, not length. A short claim can smuggle many posits.
[D] Comparing candidates that don't equally fit the evidence Run the fit gate first — the razor only adjudicates among accounts that all explain the data.
[D] "Occam said entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity" That formulation is not in Ockham's texts — later attribution (SEP). Don't anchor on a misquote.
[D] Treating the razor's output as final It's a tiebreaker pending distinguishing evidence. Can't name what would overturn it? Audit isn't done.
[D] One explanation on the table, then "by Occam's razor…" With a single candidate there is nothing to prefer. Enumerate alternatives first.
[D] Asymmetric assumption-counting Strict on the candidate you dislike; generous on the one you want. Counts must be blinded to preference.
[D] Picking the simplest story rather than the simplest mechanism A neat narrative can hide many unstated mechanisms. Parsimony is about unsupported posits, not literary economy.
To add [O] entries: paste a real failure instance here after each production use Description of what happened

Red Flags

  • Fit gate skipped — candidate preferred without confirming it fits all evidence
  • "Simpler" judged by length or vibe, not unsupported assumptions
  • Only one explanation ever on the table
  • Preferred explanation silently drops a known datum (over-shave)
  • Razor deployed to win an argument, not rank hypotheses
  • No statement of what evidence would overturn the preference

Verification

  • Two or more candidates enumerated
  • Every surviving candidate fits all known evidence (fit gate before any comparison)
  • Assumption load counted as unsupported assumptions/entities — not words or steps
  • Preferred candidate has fewest unsupported assumptions
  • Over-shave check confirms preferred candidate still fits everything
  • Distinguishing evidence that would overturn the preference is named

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. These five skills are a free taste of the 130+ skills wired into every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. Try it free → https://www.deciqai.com/skills?utm_source=skill&utm_medium=oss&utm_campaign=knowledge-skills&utm_content=occams-razor · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

安全使用建议
Use this only in a trusted ClawHub checkout and with credentials appropriate for the requested task. Pay special attention before running moderation, migration, deploy, or autoreview commands; confirm targets and reasons, and use the autoreview no-yolo option if you do not want nested full-access review.
能力标签
crypto
能力评估
Purpose & Capability
The skills cover ClawHub-specific moderation, PR review, Convex setup, migrations, performance audit, and code review workflows. Some capabilities can affect production data or accounts, but those powers fit the stated maintenance purpose.
Instruction Scope
High-impact workflows require explicit targets, reasons, dry runs, backups, or user confirmation. The autoreview helper discloses that it defaults to a full-access nested Codex review and provides an opt-out.
Install Mechanism
No hidden installer, obfuscated bootstrap, or automatic startup behavior was found; the artifact is mainly markdown instructions plus a visible helper script and normal repo configuration.
Credentials
Use of GitHub, Convex, admin credentials, environment variables, and OpenAI embeddings is consistent with ClawHub operations and documented in the repo. I found no instructions to collect or export secrets outside the intended tools.
Persistence & Privilege
Persistence and privileged effects are limited to expected dev servers, migration state, repository changes, and explicitly confirmed moderation or production operations. These are disclosed and gated rather than automatic.
如何使用
  1. 确保已安装 OpenClaw(本地或 Docker 部署)
  2. 在对话框中输入安装命令:/install occams-razor
  3. 安装完成后,直接呼叫该 Skill 的名称或使用 /occams-razor 触发
  4. 根据 Skill 的参数说明提供必要输入,即可获得结构化输出
版本历史
v1.0.0
Initial release of occams-razor skill. - Provides structured guidance for applying Occam’s Razor when ranking competing explanations, designs, or diagnoses. - Supports both "engine" (direct analysis) and "coach" (step-by-step guidance) modes. - Emphasizes the importance of evidence fit before comparing simplicity. - Includes a clear audit template (Parsimony Audit) for transparent evaluation. - Outlines common rationalization pitfalls and red flags to watch for during use. - Invites domain-specific extensions via "audit packs."
元数据
Slug occams-razor
版本 1.0.0
许可证 MIT-0
累计安装 0
当前安装数 0
历史版本数 1
常见问题

Occam's Razor 是什么?

Activate when: user says 'simplify this', 'which is more likely', 'are we overcomplicating this?', 'what's the most likely explanation?', or presents multipl... 它是一个面向 Claude Code / OpenClaw 的 AI Agent Skill 插件,目前累计下载 23 次。

如何安装 Occam's Razor?

在 OpenClaw 或 Claude Code 对话框中运行命令「/install occams-razor」即可一键安装,无需额外配置。

Occam's Razor 是免费的吗?

是的,Occam's Razor 完全免费,采用 MIT-0 许可证,可自由下载、安装和使用。

Occam's Razor 支持哪些平台?

Occam's Razor 跨平台运行,可在任意部署了 OpenClaw / Claude Code 的环境中使用(cross-platform)。

谁开发了 Occam's Razor?

由 deciqAI(@deciqai)开发并维护,当前版本 v1.0.0。

💬 留言讨论