{"passport":{"unfragile":{"@version":"1.0","version":"2026-05","artifact":{"id":"tool_coglayer","slug":"coglayer","name":"Coglayer","type":"product","url":"https://www.coglayer.com","page_url":"https://unfragile.ai/coglayer","categories":["text-writing"],"tags":[],"pricing":{"model":"freemium","free":true,"starting_price":null},"status":"active","verified":false},"capabilities":[{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_0","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.structured.ideation.prompting.with.guided.frameworks","name":"structured-ideation-prompting-with-guided-frameworks","description":"Coglayer implements a templated prompt system that guides users through structured thinking exercises using predefined cognitive frameworks (e.g., Socratic questioning, perspective-taking, constraint-based ideation). Rather than accepting freeform queries, the system presents scaffolded question sequences that progressively deepen analysis by forcing users to examine assumptions, generate alternatives, and synthesize insights across multiple angles. The framework appears to work by chaining conditional prompts based on user responses, building context incrementally rather than treating each query as independent.","intents":["I want AI to ask me better questions about my idea rather than just generate content","I need a structured process to think through a problem from multiple angles systematically","I want to externalize my thinking process and have it challenged by guided prompts","I'm looking for cognitive scaffolding that prevents shallow thinking and surface-level analysis"],"best_for":["writers and researchers who value intellectual partnership over content generation","product strategists and designers working through complex problem spaces","academics and analysts who need systematic frameworks for deep exploration","solo thinkers who benefit from external structure to avoid cognitive biases"],"limitations":["Framework effectiveness depends on user willingness to engage with structured prompts rather than seeking quick answers","Predefined frameworks may not adapt well to highly domain-specific or novel problem types","No evidence of dynamic framework selection based on problem classification — likely uses static template matching","Free tier likely restricts access to advanced frameworks, limiting utility for exploratory use"],"requires":["Web browser with modern JavaScript support","Account creation (freemium model)","Willingness to engage iteratively rather than expecting single-turn responses"],"input_types":["natural language problem statement or idea","text-based context or background information"],"output_types":["structured question sequences","guided thinking prompts","synthesis of multi-angle analysis","ideation artifacts or decision frameworks"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_1","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.multi.perspective.analysis.generation","name":"multi-perspective-analysis-generation","description":"Coglayer generates alternative viewpoints and perspectives on a given idea or problem by systematically exploring it through different lenses (stakeholder perspectives, opposing viewpoints, domain-specific angles, temporal perspectives). The system likely maintains a taxonomy of perspective types and generates analysis for each, then synthesizes or presents them in parallel to help users understand their idea's implications across contexts. This appears to work by templating prompt variations that reframe the same core problem through different conceptual lenses.","intents":["I want to understand how different stakeholders would view my idea or decision","I need to anticipate counterarguments and opposing viewpoints before committing to a direction","I want to explore how my idea might play out in different contexts or time horizons","I'm looking for blind spots in my thinking by examining my idea through unfamiliar frameworks"],"best_for":["product managers and strategists evaluating decisions with multiple stakeholder impacts","writers and communicators who need to understand audience perspectives","entrepreneurs validating business ideas against diverse market viewpoints","policy makers and analysts exploring complex decisions with competing interests"],"limitations":["Perspective generation is likely template-based and may miss domain-specific or novel viewpoint types","No evidence of real stakeholder data integration — perspectives are AI-generated, not grounded in actual user research","Synthesis of conflicting perspectives may oversimplify or miss nuanced trade-offs","Limited to perspectives that can be expressed through text; visual or embodied perspectives not captured"],"requires":["Clear problem statement or idea to analyze","Willingness to engage with potentially uncomfortable or opposing viewpoints","Account with sufficient tier access (likely gated on paid plans)"],"input_types":["natural language problem or idea description","optional context about stakeholders or domains to consider"],"output_types":["structured analysis from multiple perspectives","synthesis of conflicting viewpoints","implications and trade-offs across perspectives","potential blind spots or unconsidered angles"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_2","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.assumption.surfacing.and.challenge","name":"assumption-surfacing-and-challenge","description":"Coglayer implements a capability to identify implicit assumptions embedded in user statements and generate targeted challenges or alternative assumptions. The system likely uses pattern matching or semantic analysis to detect assumption-laden language (e.g., 'we need to scale quickly' contains assumptions about growth necessity, speed importance, and current constraints), then generates questions or reframings that expose these assumptions to scrutiny. This works through a combination of linguistic analysis and templated challenge prompts designed to force users to justify or reconsider foundational beliefs.","intents":["I want to identify hidden assumptions in my thinking before they derail my strategy","I need to challenge my team's unstated beliefs about a problem or solution","I'm looking for a way to surface and test the premises underlying my decisions","I want to avoid groupthink by systematically questioning shared assumptions"],"best_for":["strategic planners and decision-makers working in high-uncertainty environments","team leads facilitating group thinking and decision-making","entrepreneurs and founders validating core business assumptions","researchers and analysts examining foundational premises in complex domains"],"limitations":["Assumption detection likely relies on pattern matching and may miss subtle or domain-specific assumptions","No integration with external data or evidence — challenges are conceptual, not empirical","Effectiveness depends on user's willingness to reconsider assumptions rather than defend them","May generate false-positive challenges on statements that are actually well-justified premises"],"requires":["Explicit or semi-explicit statement of beliefs, plans, or strategies to analyze","Openness to having assumptions questioned","Account access (likely premium feature)"],"input_types":["natural language statement of strategy, plan, or belief","context about the domain or decision context"],"output_types":["identified assumptions (structured list)","challenge questions for each assumption","alternative assumptions or reframings","implications of reconsidering each assumption"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_3","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.iterative.idea.refinement.with.feedback.loops","name":"iterative-idea-refinement-with-feedback-loops","description":"Coglayer supports multi-turn refinement of ideas through structured feedback cycles where the system generates critiques, suggestions, or questions that prompt users to iterate on their thinking. Rather than one-shot generation, the system maintains context across turns and generates increasingly targeted feedback based on how the user's idea evolves. This likely works through a combination of context accumulation (storing previous versions and user responses) and templated feedback generation that adapts based on detected changes or remaining gaps in the idea.","intents":["I want to iteratively develop my idea with AI feedback that gets smarter as I refine it","I need a thinking partner who remembers my previous iterations and builds on them","I'm looking for targeted feedback that focuses on the most important gaps or weaknesses","I want to see how my idea evolves and what patterns emerge across refinement cycles"],"best_for":["writers developing arguments or narratives over multiple drafts","product strategists refining positioning and value propositions","entrepreneurs iterating on business model or go-to-market strategy","researchers developing hypotheses and research questions"],"limitations":["Context window limitations may prevent effective tracking of ideas across many iterations","Feedback quality depends on system's ability to detect meaningful changes between versions","No integration with external validation or user research — feedback is AI-generated, not grounded in real data","Iteration history may not be persistent across sessions or may be gated behind premium tiers"],"requires":["Willingness to engage in multiple refinement cycles rather than seeking final output","Clear initial idea or problem statement","Account with session persistence (likely premium feature)"],"input_types":["initial idea or problem statement","iterative refinements and user responses to feedback","optional context about goals or constraints"],"output_types":["targeted feedback on current iteration","identification of gaps or weaknesses","suggestions for refinement","synthesis of evolution across iterations","structured critique addressing specific dimensions"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_4","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.cognitive.bias.detection.and.mitigation","name":"cognitive-bias-detection-and-mitigation","description":"Coglayer implements detection of common cognitive biases (confirmation bias, availability heuristic, anchoring, sunk cost fallacy, etc.) in user thinking and generates targeted interventions or reframings to mitigate them. The system likely uses pattern matching against a taxonomy of known biases and generates prompts or alternative framings designed to counteract each detected bias. This works through linguistic analysis of user statements combined with templated bias-mitigation prompts that force consideration of alternative information or framings.","intents":["I want to identify cognitive biases in my thinking before they influence my decisions","I need help recognizing when I'm falling into common thinking traps","I'm looking for a systematic way to challenge my own biases and blind spots","I want to make more objective decisions by accounting for known cognitive distortions"],"best_for":["decision-makers in high-stakes environments (strategy, investment, hiring)","researchers and analysts examining their own conclusions for bias","team leads facilitating group decision-making and reducing groupthink","entrepreneurs validating assumptions against cognitive biases"],"limitations":["Bias detection is pattern-based and may miss subtle or domain-specific manifestations","No integration with external data or evidence — interventions are conceptual, not empirical","Effectiveness depends on user's receptiveness to bias feedback rather than defensive reactions","May over-diagnose biases in statements that reflect legitimate domain expertise or valid heuristics","Limited to biases that can be detected through linguistic analysis; implicit or unconscious biases may be missed"],"requires":["Explicit statement of thinking, decisions, or beliefs to analyze","Openness to feedback about cognitive limitations","Account access (likely premium feature)"],"input_types":["natural language statement of thinking, decision, or belief","optional context about the decision domain or stakes"],"output_types":["identified cognitive biases (structured list with explanations)","evidence or patterns suggesting each bias","reframing or alternative perspectives to counteract bias","questions to prompt bias-aware thinking","recommendations for bias mitigation in decision-making"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","safety-moderation"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_5","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.constraint.based.ideation.and.exploration","name":"constraint-based-ideation-and-exploration","description":"Coglayer generates ideas and solutions by systematically exploring a problem space under different constraints (resource constraints, time constraints, technical constraints, regulatory constraints, etc.). The system likely maintains a taxonomy of constraint types and generates ideation prompts that force creative problem-solving within each constraint set. This works by templating prompts that reframe the problem under different constraint scenarios, encouraging users to discover solutions that might not emerge under unconstrained ideation.","intents":["I want to generate creative solutions that work within real-world constraints rather than ideal scenarios","I need to explore how my idea would need to change under different resource or time constraints","I'm looking for innovative approaches that emerge from constraint-driven thinking","I want to test my idea's robustness by exploring it under adverse or constrained conditions"],"best_for":["product managers and designers working within real-world constraints","entrepreneurs and founders with limited resources exploring feasible solutions","strategists exploring contingency plans and scenario-based strategies","innovators seeking creative solutions through constraint-driven thinking"],"limitations":["Constraint taxonomy may not cover domain-specific or novel constraint types","Generated ideas may be theoretically sound but practically infeasible","No integration with real constraint data (budgets, timelines, technical specs) — constraints are user-specified","Ideation quality depends on how well constraints are articulated by the user"],"requires":["Clear problem or idea to explore","Explicit articulation of constraints to apply","Willingness to engage with potentially uncomfortable constraint scenarios"],"input_types":["problem statement or idea to explore","constraint specifications (resource, time, technical, regulatory, etc.)","optional context about current solutions or approaches"],"output_types":["constraint-specific ideation and solutions","creative approaches that emerge from constraints","trade-offs and implications of constraint-driven solutions","synthesis of ideas across different constraint scenarios"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_6","uri":"capability://planning.reasoning.synthesis.and.pattern.extraction.across.ideas","name":"synthesis-and-pattern-extraction-across-ideas","description":"Coglayer analyzes multiple ideas, arguments, or perspectives provided by the user and generates synthesis that identifies common patterns, themes, contradictions, and emergent insights. The system likely uses semantic analysis to identify relationships between inputs and generates structured synthesis that highlights connections, tensions, and higher-order patterns. This works through a combination of semantic similarity detection and templated synthesis prompts that force the system to articulate relationships and extract meta-level insights.","intents":["I want to find common themes across multiple ideas or perspectives I've explored","I need to identify contradictions or tensions between different approaches I'm considering","I'm looking for emergent insights that arise from combining multiple viewpoints","I want to synthesize research, feedback, or ideas into a coherent framework"],"best_for":["researchers synthesizing findings across multiple studies or sources","strategists integrating feedback from multiple stakeholders into coherent strategy","writers developing arguments that synthesize multiple perspectives","product teams extracting patterns from user research or feedback"],"limitations":["Synthesis quality depends on the diversity and clarity of input ideas","Pattern extraction is AI-generated and may miss domain-specific or subtle relationships","No integration with external data sources — synthesis is limited to user-provided inputs","May over-generalize or miss important nuances in synthesizing complex or contradictory ideas"],"requires":["Multiple ideas, perspectives, or arguments to synthesize","Clear articulation of each input for effective analysis","Account access (likely premium feature)"],"input_types":["multiple natural language ideas, arguments, or perspectives","optional context about the domain or synthesis goals"],"output_types":["identified patterns and themes (structured list)","synthesis of common elements across ideas","contradictions and tensions between ideas","emergent insights and meta-level patterns","integrated framework or coherent narrative"],"categories":["planning-reasoning","text-generation-language"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0},{"id":"tool_coglayer__cap_7","uri":"capability://text.generation.language.structured.writing.and.argumentation.support","name":"structured-writing-and-argumentation-support","description":"Coglayer provides structured support for developing written arguments or narratives by generating prompts and frameworks that guide users through the components of effective argumentation (thesis, evidence, counterarguments, synthesis, etc.). The system likely uses templates for different argument types (persuasive, analytical, narrative, etc.) and generates targeted prompts that help users develop each component. This works through a combination of argument structure templates and conditional prompts that adapt based on the user's progress through the argument development process.","intents":["I want to develop a strong argument with clear structure and supporting evidence","I need help organizing my thoughts into a coherent written narrative","I'm looking for guidance on addressing counterarguments and strengthening my position","I want to ensure my writing is logically sound and well-supported"],"best_for":["writers developing essays, articles, or opinion pieces","academics writing research papers or theses","professionals writing proposals, reports, or position papers","communicators crafting persuasive or analytical content"],"limitations":["Argument structure templates may not fit all writing contexts or domains","Generated prompts are generic and may not account for domain-specific argumentation norms","No integration with external sources or evidence — users must provide their own support","Effectiveness depends on user's ability to develop substantive content, not just structure"],"requires":["Clear thesis or main argument to develop","Willingness to engage with structured writing process","Account access (likely premium feature for advanced templates)"],"input_types":["thesis or main argument","supporting ideas, evidence, or examples","target audience or writing context"],"output_types":["argument structure and outline","prompts for developing each argument component","feedback on argument strength and logic","suggestions for addressing counterarguments","synthesis of argument into coherent narrative"],"categories":["text-generation-language","planning-reasoning"],"confidence":0.5,"matches":0,"success_rate":0}],"trust":{"score":37,"verified":false,"data_access_risk":"low","permissions":["Web browser with modern JavaScript support","Account creation (freemium model)","Willingness to engage iteratively rather than expecting single-turn responses","Clear problem statement or idea to analyze","Willingness to engage with potentially uncomfortable or opposing viewpoints","Account with sufficient tier access (likely gated on paid plans)","Explicit or semi-explicit statement of beliefs, plans, or strategies to analyze","Openness to having assumptions questioned","Account access (likely premium feature)","Willingness to engage in multiple refinement cycles rather than seeking final output"],"failure_modes":["Framework effectiveness depends on user willingness to engage with structured prompts rather than seeking quick answers","Predefined frameworks may not adapt well to highly domain-specific or novel problem types","No evidence of dynamic framework selection based on problem classification — likely uses static template matching","Free tier likely restricts access to advanced frameworks, limiting utility for exploratory use","Perspective generation is likely template-based and may miss domain-specific or novel viewpoint types","No evidence of real stakeholder data integration — perspectives are AI-generated, not grounded in actual user research","Synthesis of conflicting perspectives may oversimplify or miss nuanced trade-offs","Limited to perspectives that can be expressed through text; visual or embodied perspectives not captured","Assumption detection likely relies on pattern matching and may miss subtle or domain-specific assumptions","No integration with external data or evidence — challenges are conceptual, not empirical","builder identity is not verified yet","no observed match outcomes yet"],"rank_breakdown":{"adoption":0.2833333333333333,"quality":0.63,"ecosystem":0.15000000000000002,"match_graph":0.25,"freshness":0.75,"weights":{"adoption":0.25,"quality":0.25,"ecosystem":0.1,"match_graph":0.35,"freshness":0.05}},"observed_outcomes":{"matches":0,"success_rate":0,"avg_confidence":0,"top_intents":[],"last_matched_at":null},"maintenance":{"status":"active","updated_at":"2026-05-24T12:16:29.717Z","last_scraped_at":"2026-04-05T13:23:42.562Z","last_commit":null},"community":{"stars":null,"forks":null,"weekly_downloads":null,"model_downloads":null,"model_likes":null}},"distribution":{"claim_url":"https://unfragile.ai/submit?claim=coglayer","compare_url":"https://unfragile.ai/compare?artifact=coglayer"}},"signature":"BWfS07w7SCS8qnxVn407p5JaUyczCAPbE+HkLIOoz74n2a0SHh2bn7Hl9fwmw/zri8D/S5tvkUTb/SbENoqvDw==","signedAt":"2026-06-22T05:25:28.378Z","signedBy":"unfragile.ai","version":1},"_links":{"self":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/passport/coglayer","artifact":"https://unfragile.ai/coglayer","verify":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/verify?slug=coglayer","publicKey":"https://unfragile.ai/api/v1/trust-passport-public-key","spec":"https://unfragile.ai/trust","schema":"https://unfragile.ai/schema.json","docs":"https://unfragile.ai/docs"}}