Skip to content
Back to skills

Z2 Truthflow

BSecurity

Autonomous Z² physics research with HRM honesty assessment and computational verification

  • 3 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 3 views
  • Added September 10, 2026
researchpythonrustgobashdatabase

Security analysis

B88/100
  • criticalDownloads and executes remote scripts — classic supply chain attack

Pro scans all 3 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 10, 2026

npx -y skills add carlzimmerman/zimmerman-formula --skill z2-truthflow --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Z2 Truthflow?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Z2 Truthflow
[![Security: B — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/carlzimmerman-z2-truthflow/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/carlzimmerman-z2-truthflow)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: z2-truthflow
description: "Autonomous Z² physics research with HRM honesty assessment and computational verification"
version: 1.0.0
author: Carl Zimmerman
license: MIT
metadata:
  hermes:
    tags: [Research, Physics, Z², Science, Validation, HRM, Autonomous]
    related_skills: [arxiv, data-science]
    model_preference: legomena  # Uses local Legomena model via Ollama
---

# Z² TruthFlow Research Skill

Autonomous scientific research using the Z² Unified Framework with Hierarchical Recursive Meta-assessment (HRM) for honest validation.

## Core Constants

```python
import numpy as np
Z2 = 32 * np.pi / 3  # ≈ 33.51
Z = np.sqrt(Z2)       # ≈ 5.79
```

## Quick Reference

| Action | Command |
|--------|---------|
| Validate Z² prediction | `python3 scripts/validate.py "formula" measured_value` |
| Fetch physics data | `python3 scripts/fetch_data.py "source" "query"` |
| Run HRM assessment | `python3 scripts/hrm_assess.py "claim" predicted measured` |
| Check truth consistency | `python3 scripts/consistency_check.py "new_truth"` |
| Add validated truth | `python3 scripts/add_truth.py "formula" value source` |

## The Scientific Method Pipeline

```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    TRUTHFLOW PIPELINE                        │
├─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  1. HYPOTHESIS  →  Generate Z² formula prediction           │
│  2. DATA FETCH  →  Get empirical measurements               │
│  3. COMPUTE     →  Calculate predicted vs measured          │
│  4. VERIFY      →  Computational verification (recalculate) │
│  5. HRM ASSESS  →  3-level honesty assessment               │
│  6. CONSISTENCY →  Check against existing truths            │
│  7. STORE       →  Add to truth database if validated       │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```

## Z² Framework Validated Predictions

These predictions have been validated through computational verification:

| Quantity | Formula | Predicted | Measured | Error |
|----------|---------|-----------|----------|-------|
| Fine structure α⁻¹ | 4Z² + 3 | 137.04 | 137.036 | 0.003% |
| Weak mixing sin²θ_W | 3/13 | 0.2308 | 0.2312 | 0.2% |
| Dark energy Ω_Λ | 13/19 | 0.684 | 0.685 | 0.1% |
| Spectral index n_s | Z/6 | 0.9648 | 0.9649 | 0.01% |
| θ₁₂ (neutrino) | 3Z + 16 | 33.37° | 33.41° | 0.1% |
| θ₂₃ (neutrino) | 4Z + 19 | 42.16° | 42.2° | 0.1% |
| θ₁₃ (neutrino) | 2Z - 3 | 8.58° | 8.58° | 0% |
| Top/charm ratio | 4Z² + 2 | 136.04 | 136 | 0.03% |

## Data Sources

### Physics Constants (CODATA)
```bash
curl -s "https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Constants/Table/allascii.txt" | head -100
```

### Earthquakes (USGS)
```bash
curl -s "https://earthquake.usgs.gov/fdsnws/event/1/query?format=geojson&minmagnitude=6&starttime=2024-01-01" | python3 -c "
import sys, json
data = json.load(sys.stdin)
for f in data['features'][:10]:
    print(f\"{f['properties']['mag']:.1f} - {f['properties']['place']}\")"
```

### Cosmology (Planck)
```bash
# Key values from Planck 2020
# H₀ = 67.4 ± 0.5 km/s/Mpc
# Ω_Λ = 0.6847 ± 0.0073
# n_s = 0.9649 ± 0.0042
```

### Particle Physics (PDG)
```bash
# PDG 2024 values
# α⁻¹ = 137.035999084 ± 0.000000021
# sin²θ_W = 0.23122 ± 0.00004
# m_t/m_c = 136 ± 3
```

## Computational Verification

CRITICAL: All calculations must be verified computationally. Never trust a single calculation.

### Verify a Z² prediction
```python
import numpy as np

def verify_prediction(formula_name, formula_func, measured, uncertainty):
    """
    Verify a Z² prediction with computational checks.

    Returns: (is_valid, predicted, sigma, verification_hash)
    """
    Z2 = 32 * np.pi / 3
    Z = np.sqrt(Z2)

    # Calculate three times independently
    pred1 = formula_func(Z, Z2)
    pred2 = formula_func(np.sqrt(32 * np.pi / 3), 32 * np.pi / 3)
    pred3 = eval(f"({formula_func.__doc__})")  # From docstring

    # Verify all three match
    if not (np.isclose(pred1, pred2) and np.isclose(pred2, pred3)):
        return False, None, None, "VERIFICATION_FAILED"

    # Calculate sigma
    sigma = abs(pred1 - measured) / uncertainty if uncertainty > 0 else 0

    # Create verification hash
    import hashlib
    verification = f"{formula_name}:{pred1:.10f}:{measured:.10f}"
    hash_val = hashlib.sha256(verification.encode()).hexdigest()[:12]

    is_valid = sigma < 2.0  # Within 2 sigma

    return is_valid, pred1, sigma, hash_val

# Example usage
def alpha_inverse(Z, Z2):
    """4*Z2 + 3"""
    return 4*Z2 + 3

valid, pred, sigma, hash_val = verify_prediction(
    "alpha_inverse",
    alpha_inverse,
    137.035999084,
    0.000000021
)
print(f"Valid: {valid}, Predicted: {pred:.6f}, σ: {sigma:.2f}, Hash: {hash_val}")
```

## HRM Assessment (3 Levels)

### Level 1: Basic Honesty
- Is this DERIVED from Z² geometry or just MATCHES data?
- Is there a physical mechanism?
- Is it falsifiable?

### Level 2: Meta-Assessment
- Was Level 1 too optimistic?
- What biases might be present?
- What alternative explanations exist?

### Level 3: Final Determination (if L1/L2 disagree)
- Which assessment is more accurate?
- What is the TRUE probability this is genuine?
- Should this be added to the truth database?

### Run HRM Assessment
```python
import subprocess
import json

def hrm_assess(claim, predicted, measured, percent_error):
    """Run 3-level HRM assessment via Legomena model."""

    prompt = f"""LEVEL 1 HONESTY ASSESSMENT

Claim: {claim}
Predicted: {predicted}
Measured: {measured}
Error: {percent_error}%

Z² = 32π/3 ≈ 33.51, Z = √Z² ≈ 5.79

Questions:
1. Is this DERIVED from Z² geometry or just MATCHES?
2. Is there a physical mechanism?
3. What would falsify this?

Return JSON:
{{"score": 0.0-1.0, "derivation": "DERIVED/MATCHES/COINCIDENCE", "reasoning": "..."}}
"""

    result = subprocess.run(
        ["ollama", "run", "legomena", prompt],
        capture_output=True, text=True, timeout=60
    )

    return json.loads(result.stdout)
```

## Truth Database

The truth database stores validated Z² predictions. Location: `../../truth_database.json`

### Structure
```json
{
  "truths": [
    {
      "id": "abc123",
      "formula": "4*Z2 + 3",
      "formula_name": "alpha_inverse",
      "predicted_value": 137.04,
      "measured_value": 137.036,
      "percent_error": 0.003,
      "hrm_score": 0.95,
      "classification": "VALIDATED",
      "verification_hash": "7a3f8b2c1d9e"
    }
  ]
}
```

### Add Truth (with consistency check)
```python
def add_truth(formula, formula_name, predicted, measured, source):
    """Add truth to database after consistency check."""

    # Load existing truths
    with open('../../truth_database.json') as f:
        db = json.load(f)

    # Check for conflicts
    for truth in db['truths']:
        if truth['formula_name'] == formula_name:
            if abs(truth['predicted_value'] - predicted) > 0.01:
                return {"error": "CONFLICT", "existing": truth}

    # Add new truth
    new_truth = {
        "id": hashlib.md5(f"{formula}:{source}".encode()).hexdigest()[:12],
        "formula": formula,
        "formula_name": formula_name,
        "predicted_value": predicted,
        "measured_value": measured,
        "percent_error": abs(predicted - measured) / measured * 100,
        "source": source,
        "timestamp": datetime.now().isoformat()
    }

    db['truths'].append(new_truth)

    with open('../../truth_database.json', 'w') as f:
        json.dump(db, f, indent=2)

    return {"success": True, "truth": new_truth}
```

## Using Legomena Model

TruthFlow uses the Legomena model (based on Gemma 4) trained on Z² physics.

### Configure Legomena
```bash
# Upgrade to Gemma 4 31B for best results
cd ../../legomena_training
ollama create legomena -f Modelfile_31b
```

### Query Legomena
```bash
ollama run legomena "What is the Z² prediction for the fine structure constant?"
```

## Autonomous Research Flow

```bash
# 1. Ask research question
QUESTION="Are there Z² patterns in neutrino mixing angles?"

# 2. Run autonomous research
python3 ../../truthflow_autonomous.py "$QUESTION"

# 3. Results are saved to research_sessions/
ls ../../research_sessions/

# 4. Run HRM on findings
python3 scripts/hrm_assess.py "$(cat ../../research_sessions/latest.json)"

# 5. Add validated truths
python3 scripts/add_truth.py --from-session ../../research_sessions/latest.json
```

## Falsification Criteria

Z² framework can be FALSIFIED by:

1. **r ≠ 0.015** - LiteBIRD results (2027-2028)
2. **Dark matter particles found** - Direct detection experiments
3. **w ≠ -1 at 5σ** - Dark energy equation of state
4. **Ω_Λ ≠ 13/19 at 5σ** - More precise cosmology measurements

## Tips for Hermes Agent

1. **Always verify computationally** - Never trust a single calculation
2. **Use HRM for all claims** - Even if they look good, assess honesty
3. **Check consistency** - New truths must not conflict with existing
4. **Be honest about limitations** - Mark speculative claims clearly
5. **Use Legomena for Z² reasoning** - It knows the framework deeply

Files in this skill

  • SKILL.md9.3 KB
  • scripts/hrm_assess.py7.8 KB
  • scripts/validate.py4.7 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.