Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

assumption-test

Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine implementation.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md2.5 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Assumption test

A plausible assumption can survive every planning conversation and still fail on contact with the system. Turn the consequential uncertainty into a question an experiment can answer.

Steps

  1. Read the request, relevant code, and existing evidence. If inspection already settles the question, cite that evidence and stop; do not manufacture an experiment. If several assumptions remain, select the one whose failure would most change the approach.
  2. State the assumption as an observable prediction. Define what would refute it, what would support it within the tested scope, and what would leave it inconclusive. Set those criteria before observing the result.
  3. Design the smallest discriminating experiment. Use an isolated fixture or test environment, the real component under question where available, and a bounded number of operations. Name what the setup cannot represent; a mock's behavior is not evidence about its provider.
  4. Run the experiment within the user's authorized scope. Preserve the command, relevant inputs, actual output, and environment details needed to reproduce it. If a tool or dependency is unavailable, report the experiment as unrun or inconclusive, with the missing prerequisite.
  5. Close with the assumption, method, observation, verdict (supported within scope, refuted, or inconclusive), and the planning decision this evidence changes. Recommend the next discriminating check only if it could change that decision. Keep temporary code separate from the production implementation.

Guardrails

  • One successful trial does not establish a universal claim. State the tested conditions and remaining uncertainty, particularly for concurrency and performance.
  • Do not use production writes, real payments, destructive operations, or newly incurred costs without authorization. An experiment does not grant additional permissions.
  • Distinguish the component failing from the experiment failing to run. Never turn missing access or a broken fixture into a verdict about the system.
  • Do not fix the implementation or broaden into a build unless the user requested it. The deliverable is evidence that informs a decision.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Design tools, scripts, and CLIs that an agent will call, so the interface teaches its own use instead of a wall of prose and examples. Use when building an MCP server or tool definition, writing an agent-facing script, or when an agent keeps misusing a tool it already has.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

Surface the user's unknown unknowns before work starts. Use when the user is entering an unfamiliar codebase area, an unfamiliar domain (design, video, infra), or explicitly asks for a "blindspot pass" or to find their "unknown unknowns."

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

Generate several genuinely different throwaway variations (designs, approaches, drafts) for the user to react to. Use when the user can only recognize what they want by seeing it — visual design, UX flows, naming, tone — or asks to brainstorm or prototype before building.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

After a working session, produce a report on what changed plus a quiz the user must pass before merging. Use when the user asks "what did we actually do," wants to review a large change, or invokes a quiz before merge.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

Audit the instructions an agent already carries — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, skills, tool descriptions — for contradictions, over-constraint, and duplication, then propose a cut list. Use when an agent ignores its own instructions, when a CLAUDE.md has grown bloated, or when the user asks to audit or rightsize their agent context.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

Keep a running implementation-notes.md during a build, logging every deviation from the plan and every discovered edge case. Use whenever implementing against an agreed plan or spec, especially in long autonomous sessions.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills353Updated Sep 28, 2026

See all skills by Neeeophytee

Report a problem with this skill