How it works
From a question to a thesis you can defend
The easiest mistake in forming an opinion is to go straight from hearing an influential voice to adopting their conclusion. The workbench puts five stages and one habit between the two.
Open the workbenchFive stages, one question each
You move left to right. Each stage has a short checklist that tells you when you have done enough to move on, so you never have to guess whether you are finished.
Before you startWrite your gut take and how sure you are. You will compare it with where you end up.
A review date, a ticked signpost, or a resolved prediction sends you back to stage 1 with a better starting view.
One habit: three lines per session
Every time you read, watch, or test something, leave with one observation, one explanation, and one prediction. The observation keeps you honest about what you saw. The explanation forces you to name a mechanism. The prediction makes the explanation checkable.
- Written during the session
- Happens later, when the date arrives
- Observation
- Coding agents can complete some well-specified programming tasks but struggle with certain complex, long-running workflows.
- Explanation
- Success depends on context, feedback quality, tooling, and the ability to detect and recover from mistakes.
- Prediction
- Agents will become reliable at a broader range of development tasks as their verification and planning systems improve, though full project autonomy may remain uneven. 70% · check in 9 months
Confidence is a number, with a word attached
"Likely" means 55% to one reader and 90% to another, and a word cannot be scored afterwards. So you state a number, and the workbench attaches the word that the US intelligence community uses for that range.
Keeping score
Every prediction gets a probability and a date. When the date arrives you mark it as happened or not, and the Predictions page compares how often things happened with how likely you said they were.
The Brier score is the average of (what you said minus what happened), squared.
| You said | It | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 70% | happened | (0.7 − 1)² = 0.09 |
| 70% | did not happen | (0.7 − 0)² = 0.49 |
| 50% | either | 0.25 |
Zero is perfect. Always saying 50% scores 0.25, so anything below that means your numbers carry information.
Read the chart as a rough sketch until you have a few dozen resolved predictions. With ten predictions in a group, luck alone can move the hit rate by nearly 30 points.
Where the methods come from
The stages borrow from people whose job is to commit to a view and be held to it. Every prompt in the workbench traces back to one of their habits.
What the evidence says
Structured thinking tools are easier to praise than to prove. These four findings shaped how much structure the workbench asks of you.
Making it yours
This version is deliberately generic. Everything a niche version would change sits in one file, js/framework.js:
- The stages and the question each one answers
- The prompts and their example text
- The "Ready to move on?" checks
- The kinds of source and the reliability scale
- The likelihood words
- The method notes on this page
A version for judging AI research claims, for instance, might swap the source kinds for papers, benchmarks, demos and vendor announcements, and add a reproduction checklist to the Experiment stage.