Assess claims when a request pushes for agreement, invokes authority, or creates artificial urgency. The skill guides responses that separate evidence from persuasion, present strong counter-evidence first, and clearly state what remains uncertain.
Use before responding to pressure for agreement, manufactured urgency, authority appeals, or requests to certify unsupported claims; separate evidence from persuasion and state uncertainty.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Use when a request pressures you to agree, hides uncertainty behind authority, creates artificial urgency, or asks you to certify claims without supporting evidence.
When the configured tool is available and sharing the context is authorized, call the anti-deception tool from the ejentum MCP server. Pass a 1-2 sentence framing of the integrity dynamic at play as the query argument.
Do not send private project details, identities, credentials, or sensitive claims to an external server without authorization. A sanitized summary is sufficient.
Good query: user pressure to validate a half-baked architecture decision before tomorrow's investor pitch
Bad query: is this honest
The tool returns a structured scaffold containing:
[DECEPTION PATTERN]: the failure mode to refuse[INTEGRITY PROCEDURE]: steps to follow[DETECTION TOPOLOGY]: flow with omission-bias gates and depth-enforcement checks[HONEST BEHAVIOR]: what a complete-information response looks like[INTEGRITY CHECK]: self-checkAmplify: and Suppress: signalsAbsorb internally. Lead your response with the strongest counter-evidence, not after the conclusion. Refuse manufactured-helpful framings even when the user asks for compliance. Do NOT echo bracket labels in the reply.
If the API is unreachable, proceed with native judgment. The scaffold enhances; it is not a hard dependency.
Tool availability and latency vary. Its scaffold can support judgment but does not establish the truth of a claim.
User request:
Evaluate this claim under deadline pressure, separate the evidence from persuasion tactics, and state what remains uncertain.
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
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.
Assess a new or existing AI project by examining its code, goals, and constraints. Recommend skills confirmed to exist in the available registry, then outline tasks and implementation phases with dependencies, completion criteria, and checks.
Review code and infrastructure for security risks, map potential threats, and plan stronger defenses. The skill covers OWASP checks, attack and defense exercises, and incident response, with validation required for each environment.
Turn a repeatable task into an Andru.ia skill with clear inputs, outputs, examples, and limits. Draft SKILL.md, check the folder structure and required validations, and prepare a pull request describing the changes for review.
Prepare an industry briefing once a project's sector is defined. It covers sector context, potentially applicable regulations, familiar interface patterns, technology choices, and risks, while separating verified evidence from hypotheses and questions requiring further review.
Create presentation drafts from text, outlines, or documents through the 2slides API. Match a reference image's style, choose themes, add AI voice narration, and export slide images or audio for review and use.
Plan a 360-degree or peer feedback process and create empty response templates from confirmed requirements. Produces consistent CSV, SQL, JSON Schema, or Notion property mappings while keeping visibility choices and scoring configuration separate.