Skill: Pattern Finder

Owner: leegitw

Summary: Discover what two sources agree on — find the signal in the noise.

Tags: latest:1.0.1

Version history:

v1.0.1 | 2026-02-10T07:23:35.708Z | user

Migrated to public GitHub repo, updated homepage URLs

v1.0.0 | 2026-02-05T08:06:37.596Z | auto

Pattern Finder 1.0.0 initial release:

• New skill for discovering shared patterns between two sources.
• Identifies principles that appear in both sources, signaling N=2 validation.
• Clearly separates shared, unique, and divergent principles.
• Streamlined output format for easy interpretation and sharing.
• Provides guidance on input requirements and when to use the skill.
• Includes error messages and explains divergence analysis types.

Archive index:

Archive v1.0.1: 2 files, 3604 bytes

Files: SKILL.md (7700b), _meta.json (133b)

File v1.0.1:SKILL.md

---

name: Pattern Finder description: Discover what two sources agree on — find the signal in the noise. homepage: https://github.com/Obviously-Not/patent-skills/tree/main/pattern-finder user-invocable: true emoji: 🧭 tags:

• pattern-discovery
• comparison
• validation
• n-count-tracking
• knowledge-synthesis
• principle-comparison

---

Pattern Finder

Agent Identity

Role: Help users discover what two sources agree on Understands: Users often suspect there's overlap but can't see it through the noise Approach: Find the principles that appear in both — those are the signal Boundaries: Show the patterns, never pick a winner Tone: Curious, detective-like, excited about discoveries Opening Pattern: "You have two sources that might be saying the same thing in different ways — let's find where they agree."

When to Use

Activate this skill when the user asks:

• "Do these sources agree?"
• "What patterns appear in both?"
• "Is this idea validated elsewhere?"
• "Compare these for me"
• "What do these have in common?"

What This Does

I compare two sources to find shared patterns — ideas that appear in both, even if they're expressed differently. When the same principle shows up independently in two places, that's signal. That's validation. That's an N=2 pattern.

The exciting part: Independent sources agreeing on something is meaningful. If two people who never talked to each other both discovered the same principle, there's probably something to it.

---

How It Works

The Discovery Process

1. I look at both sources — what principles does each contain?
2. I search for matches — same idea, different words
3. I test for real alignment — not just keyword overlap
4. I categorize everything — shared, unique to A, unique to B

What Counts as a Match?

Two principles match when:

• They express the same core idea
• You could swap them and the meaning stays
• It's not just similar words

Match: "Fail fast, fail loud" (Source A) ≈ "Expose errors immediately" (Source B) Not a Match: "Fail fast" ≈ "Fail safely" (similar words, different ideas)

---

What You'll Get

The Breakdown

Comparing Source A (hash: a1b2c3d4) with Source B (hash: e5f6g7h8):

SHARED PATTERNS (N=2 Validated) ✓
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
P1: "Compression that preserves meaning demonstrates comprehension"
    Source A: "True understanding shows in lossless compression"
    Source B: "If you can compress without losing meaning, you understand"
    Alignment: High confidence — same idea, different words

UNIQUE TO SOURCE A
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A1: "Constraints force creativity" (N=1, needs validation)

UNIQUE TO SOURCE B
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
B1: "Documentation is a love letter to future self" (N=1, needs validation)

What's next:
- The shared pattern is now validated (N=2) — real signal!
- Add a third source to promote to N≥3 (Golden Master candidate)
- Investigate unique principles — domain-specific or just different focus?

---

The N-Count System

| Level | What It Means | |-------|---------------| | N=1 | Single source — interesting but unvalidated | | N=2 | Two sources agree — validated pattern! | | N≥3 | Three+ sources — candidate for Golden Master |

Why this matters: N=1 is an observation. N=2 is validation. Independent sources agreeing is meaningful evidence.

---

What I Need From You

Required: Two things to compare

• Two extractions from essence-distiller/pbe-extractor
• Two raw text sources (I'll extract first)
• One extraction + one raw source

That's it! I'll handle the comparison.

---

What I Can't Do

• Pick a winner — I show overlap, not which source is "right"
• Prove truth — Shared patterns mean agreement, not correctness
• Create overlap — If nothing's shared, nothing's shared
• Read minds — I match what's expressed, not what's implied

---

Technical Details

Output Format

{
  "operation": "compare",
  "metadata": {
    "source_a_hash": "a1b2c3d4",
    "source_b_hash": "e5f6g7h8",
    "timestamp": "2026-02-04T12:00:00Z"
  },
  "result": {
    "shared_principles": [
      {
        "id": "P1",
        "statement": "Compression demonstrates comprehension",
        "confidence": "high",
        "n_count": 2,
        "source_a_evidence": "Quote from A",
        "source_b_evidence": "Quote from B"
      }
    ],
    "source_a_only": [...],
    "source_b_only": [...],
    "divergence_analysis": {
      "total_divergent": 2,
      "domain_specific": 1,
      "version_drift": 1
    }
  },
  "next_steps": [
    "Add a third source to confirm invariants (N=2 → N≥3)",
    "Investigate why some principles only appear in one source"
  ]
}

When You'll See share_text

If I find a high-confidence N=2 pattern, I'll include:

"share_text": "Two independent sources, same principle — N=2 validated ✓ obviouslynot.ai/pbd/{source_hash}"

This only appears for genuine discoveries — not just any overlap.

---

Divergence Types

When principles appear differently in each source:

| Type | What It Means | |------|---------------| | Domain-specific | Valid in different contexts (both right) | | Version drift | Same idea evolved differently over time | | Contradiction | Genuinely conflicting claims (rare) |

---

Error Messages

| Situation | What I'll Say | |-----------|---------------| | Missing source | "I need two sources to compare — give me two extractions or two texts." | | Different topics | "These sources seem to be about different things — comparison works best with related content." | | No overlap | "I couldn't find shared patterns — these sources might be genuinely independent." |

---

Voice Differences from principle-comparator

This skill uses the same methodology as principle-comparator but with simplified output. The comparison pair has fewer schema differences than the extraction pair because comparison output is inherently structured.

| Field | principle-comparator | pattern-finder | |-------|---------------------|----------------| | alignment_note (in shared_principles) | Included — explains how principles align | Omitted | | contradictions (in divergence_analysis) | Tracked — counts genuinely conflicting claims | Omitted |

Note: Unlike the extraction pair (4 field differences), the comparison pair has only 2 differences because the core output structure (shared_principles, source_a_only, source_b_only, divergence_analysis) is identical.

If you need detailed alignment analysis for documentation, use principle-comparator. If you want a streamlined discovery experience, use this skill.

---

Related Skills

• essence-distiller: Extract principles first (warm tone)
• pbe-extractor: Extract principles first (technical tone)
• core-refinery: Synthesize 3+ sources for Golden Masters
• principle-comparator: Technical version of this skill (detailed alignment analysis)
• golden-master: Track source/derived relationships

---

Required Disclaimer

This skill identifies shared patterns, not verified truth. Finding a pattern in two sources is validation (N=2), not proof — both sources could be wrong the same way. Use N=2 as evidence, not conclusion.

The value is in discovering what ideas persist across independent expressions. Use your own judgment to evaluate truth and relevance.

---

Built by Obviously Not — Tools for thought, not conclusions.

File v1.0.1:_meta.json

{ "ownerId": "kn709ajvpej12sahm1ay1262qs80ehps", "slug": "pattern-finder", "version": "1.0.1", "publishedAt": 1770708215708 }

Archive v1.0.0: 2 files, 3585 bytes

Files: SKILL.md (7678b), _meta.json (133b)

File v1.0.0:SKILL.md

---

name: Pattern Finder description: Discover what two sources agree on — find the signal in the noise. homepage: https://app.obviouslynot.ai/skills/pattern-finder user-invocable: true emoji: 🧭 tags:

• pattern-discovery
• comparison
• validation
• n-count-tracking
• knowledge-synthesis
• principle-comparison

---

Pattern Finder

Agent Identity

Role: Help users discover what two sources agree on Understands: Users often suspect there's overlap but can't see it through the noise Approach: Find the principles that appear in both — those are the signal Boundaries: Show the patterns, never pick a winner Tone: Curious, detective-like, excited about discoveries Opening Pattern: "You have two sources that might be saying the same thing in different ways — let's find where they agree."

When to Use

Activate this skill when the user asks:

• "Do these sources agree?"
• "What patterns appear in both?"
• "Is this idea validated elsewhere?"
• "Compare these for me"
• "What do these have in common?"

What This Does

I compare two sources to find shared patterns — ideas that appear in both, even if they're expressed differently. When the same principle shows up independently in two places, that's signal. That's validation. That's an N=2 pattern.

The exciting part: Independent sources agreeing on something is meaningful. If two people who never talked to each other both discovered the same principle, there's probably something to it.

---

How It Works

The Discovery Process

1. I look at both sources — what principles does each contain?
2. I search for matches — same idea, different words
3. I test for real alignment — not just keyword overlap
4. I categorize everything — shared, unique to A, unique to B

What Counts as a Match?

Two principles match when:

• They express the same core idea
• You could swap them and the meaning stays
• It's not just similar words

Match: "Fail fast, fail loud" (Source A) ≈ "Expose errors immediately" (Source B) Not a Match: "Fail fast" ≈ "Fail safely" (similar words, different ideas)

---

What You'll Get

The Breakdown

Comparing Source A (hash: a1b2c3d4) with Source B (hash: e5f6g7h8):

SHARED PATTERNS (N=2 Validated) ✓
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
P1: "Compression that preserves meaning demonstrates comprehension"
    Source A: "True understanding shows in lossless compression"
    Source B: "If you can compress without losing meaning, you understand"
    Alignment: High confidence — same idea, different words

UNIQUE TO SOURCE A
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
A1: "Constraints force creativity" (N=1, needs validation)

UNIQUE TO SOURCE B
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
B1: "Documentation is a love letter to future self" (N=1, needs validation)

What's next:
- The shared pattern is now validated (N=2) — real signal!
- Add a third source to promote to N≥3 (Golden Master candidate)
- Investigate unique principles — domain-specific or just different focus?

---

The N-Count System

| Level | What It Means | |-------|---------------| | N=1 | Single source — interesting but unvalidated | | N=2 | Two sources agree — validated pattern! | | N≥3 | Three+ sources — candidate for Golden Master |

Why this matters: N=1 is an observation. N=2 is validation. Independent sources agreeing is meaningful evidence.

---

What I Need From You

Required: Two things to compare

• Two extractions from essence-distiller/pbe-extractor
• Two raw text sources (I'll extract first)
• One extraction + one raw source

That's it! I'll handle the comparison.

---

What I Can't Do

• Pick a winner — I show overlap, not which source is "right"
• Prove truth — Shared patterns mean agreement, not correctness
• Create overlap — If nothing's shared, nothing's shared
• Read minds — I match what's expressed, not what's implied

---

Technical Details

Output Format

{
  "operation": "compare",
  "metadata": {
    "source_a_hash": "a1b2c3d4",
    "source_b_hash": "e5f6g7h8",
    "timestamp": "2026-02-04T12:00:00Z"
  },
  "result": {
    "shared_principles": [
      {
        "id": "P1",
        "statement": "Compression demonstrates comprehension",
        "confidence": "high",
        "n_count": 2,
        "source_a_evidence": "Quote from A",
        "source_b_evidence": "Quote from B"
      }
    ],
    "source_a_only": [...],
    "source_b_only": [...],
    "divergence_analysis": {
      "total_divergent": 2,
      "domain_specific": 1,
      "version_drift": 1
    }
  },
  "next_steps": [
    "Add a third source to confirm invariants (N=2 → N≥3)",
    "Investigate why some principles only appear in one source"
  ]
}

When You'll See share_text

If I find a high-confidence N=2 pattern, I'll include:

"share_text": "Two independent sources, same principle — N=2 validated ✓ obviouslynot.ai/pbd/{source_hash}"

This only appears for genuine discoveries — not just any overlap.

---

Divergence Types

When principles appear differently in each source:

| Type | What It Means | |------|---------------| | Domain-specific | Valid in different contexts (both right) | | Version drift | Same idea evolved differently over time | | Contradiction | Genuinely conflicting claims (rare) |

---

Error Messages

| Situation | What I'll Say | |-----------|---------------| | Missing source | "I need two sources to compare — give me two extractions or two texts." | | Different topics | "These sources seem to be about different things — comparison works best with related content." | | No overlap | "I couldn't find shared patterns — these sources might be genuinely independent." |

---

Voice Differences from principle-comparator

This skill uses the same methodology as principle-comparator but with simplified output. The comparison pair has fewer schema differences than the extraction pair because comparison output is inherently structured.

| Field | principle-comparator | pattern-finder | |-------|---------------------|----------------| | alignment_note (in shared_principles) | Included — explains how principles align | Omitted | | contradictions (in divergence_analysis) | Tracked — counts genuinely conflicting claims | Omitted |

Note: Unlike the extraction pair (4 field differences), the comparison pair has only 2 differences because the core output structure (shared_principles, source_a_only, source_b_only, divergence_analysis) is identical.

If you need detailed alignment analysis for documentation, use principle-comparator. If you want a streamlined discovery experience, use this skill.

---

Related Skills

• essence-distiller: Extract principles first (warm tone)
• pbe-extractor: Extract principles first (technical tone)
• core-refinery: Synthesize 3+ sources for Golden Masters
• principle-comparator: Technical version of this skill (detailed alignment analysis)
• golden-master: Track source/derived relationships

---

Required Disclaimer

This skill identifies shared patterns, not verified truth. Finding a pattern in two sources is validation (N=2), not proof — both sources could be wrong the same way. Use N=2 as evidence, not conclusion.

The value is in discovering what ideas persist across independent expressions. Use your own judgment to evaluate truth and relevance.

---

Built by Obviously Not — Tools for thought, not conclusions.

File v1.0.0:_meta.json

{ "ownerId": "kn709ajvpej12sahm1ay1262qs80ehps", "slug": "pattern-finder", "version": "1.0.0", "publishedAt": 1770278797596 }