# Prism

Split one artifact, a claim, plan, or file, across 2 to 5 independent lenses, one per...

- Repository: https://github.com/LilMGenius/paperthin (1365 stars)
- Category: Security
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add LilMGenius/paperthin --skill prism -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add LilMGenius/paperthin --skill prism -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add LilMGenius/paperthin --skill prism -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add LilMGenius/paperthin --skill prism -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

Split one artifact, a claim, plan, or file, across 2 to 5 independent lenses, one per genuinely distinct failure mode (correctness, security, readability, cost, adversarial-user), and return their convergence: where they agree, where they disagree, and the single next question that resolves the disagreement. Use when one reviewer isn't enough because the failure modes are heterogeneous, or a claim looks strong to its author and needs cross-lens pressure before it ships.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

Split one artifact across independent lenses and return where they converge and where they don't.

## Goal

The result is a picture of where the lenses agree, where they disagree, and the smallest question that would resolve the disagreement. Not a checklist, and never an average, averaging the lenses is the failure this skill exists to prevent.

## Workflow

1. Read the artifact end to end before choosing the lenses.
2. Choose one lens per genuinely distinct failure mode, correctness, security, readability, cost, adversarial-user, and the like. Two candidate lenses that share a failure mode are one lens, not two. In practice this lands between **2 and 5**: below 2 there is nothing to converge, and past 5 you are almost always padding with lenses that overlap. There is no default count, the artifact's distinct failure modes set it.
3. Through each lens, produce a one-line verdict, pass, fail, or unclear, with its single most load-bearing reason. No hedging list; if a reason isn't load-bearing, drop it.
4. Compare the verdicts and group them: full agreement, agreement for different reasons, disagreement.
5. Where there is disagreement, name the single next question whose answer would move it into agreement or a clean split with owners. That question is the output, not the individual verdicts.
6. Where every lens agrees, return the shared verdict with the reasons that were load-bearing for at least two lenses.

## Rules

The rest: https://github.com/LilMGenius/paperthin/blob/HEAD/skills/mesh/prism/SKILL.md