Examine philosophical assumptions and check for methodological coherence. Use when users question their philosophical stance, their language contradicts their declared epistemology, they are moving between stages and want to verify coherence, or something feels 'off' about their analytical approach. Checks language coherence, method-epistemology alignment, and AI relationship consistency.
Examine philosophical assumptions and check for methodological coherence. Ensures alignment between ontology, epistemology, and analytical practice.
Are you using language consistent with your philosophical stance?
| Stance | Appropriate | Avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Constructivist | construct, interpret, build |
| discover, find, extract |
| Objectivist | discover, identify, find | construct, create |
| Critical Realist | uncover, reveal, understand | construct (pure form) |
Does your analytical approach match your epistemology?
| Epistemology | Aligned Method | Tension Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Co-constructive | Reflexive journaling, positionality | Claiming objectivity |
| Systematic interpretation | Systematic procedures | Claiming pure emergence |
| Objectivist | Inter-rater reliability | Acknowledging construction |
Is your AI use consistent with your stated relationship?
| Declared | Coherent Practice | Tension Flag |
|---|---|---|
| Epistemic partner | Engaging AI questions, dialogue | Just accepting outputs |
| Interpretive aid | Using AI for organization, your interpretation | AI making interpretive claims |
| Coding tool | AI applies YOUR codes | AI creating codes |
Check the coherence of my approach:
My declared stance:
- Ontology: [from config]
- Epistemology: [from config]
- Tradition: [from config]
Recent analytical decision: [describe]
Is this coherent? What tensions exist?
Check my language coherence:
Declared stance: Constructivist
In my last session, I wrote:
"Analysis revealed that participants discover their own paths..."
Is this consistent?
Response might be:
Tension detected:
- "revealed" and "discover" suggest objectivist language
- Your constructivist stance would prefer:
"Analysis constructed an understanding that participants
characterize their own paths..."
Consider: Is this a slip in language, or are your underlying
assumptions shifting? Both are okay, but be aware.
Check my method coherence:
Declared epistemology: Systematic interpretation (Gioia)
Current practice: I'm not using inter-rater reliability, but I am
keeping detailed audit trails and seeking disconfirming cases.
Is this coherent with Gioia method?
Check my AI relationship:
Declared: Epistemic partner
Current practice: I've been accepting all of @dialogical-coder's
suggestions without much questioning.
Is this coherent?
Response might be:
Tension detected:
- Epistemic partnership implies dialogue, not acceptance
- You committed to "questioning both AI outputs AND your assumptions"
Recommendation: Before accepting next suggestion, ask:
- Why does this interpretation make sense?
- What alternative readings exist?
- What would I lose if this code changed?
# Check specific text for language coherence
python3 .agents/skills/qual-coherence-check/scripts/check_coherence.py \
--project-path /path/to/project --text "analysis revealed that..."
# Check recent conversation activity
python3 .agents/skills/qual-coherence-check/scripts/check_coherence.py \
--project-path /path/to/project --recent-activity
# Generate full coherence report
python3 .agents/skills/qual-coherence-check/scripts/check_coherence.py \
--project-path /path/to/project --full-report
Coherence Check Results
=======================
Stance Declared: [summary]
Coherent:
- [aspect that aligns]
Tensions Detected:
- [tension 1]: [explanation]
Recommendations:
- [suggestion]
Note: Tensions aren't failures - they're opportunities for
reflexive awareness. The goal is coherence, not perfection.
Coherence doesn't mean rigidity. It means:
If your stance is evolving, that's fine - document the evolution. The danger is unexamined drift.
Part of Interpretive Orchestration for Kimi CLI