본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

32-analyze-verify-150

[32] ANALYZE. Ensure every critical claim has verifiable evidence with confidence levels. Each fact must have source + confidence percentage. If confidence <85%, enter Loop150 to find more sources. Use for critical decisions, factual claims, legal/compliance work, or any situation where unverified claims are dangerous.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md6.8 KB
  • source.json857 B

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Analyze-Verify 150 Protocol

Core Principle: No claim without proof. Every critical fact needs: source + confidence level. If unsure, keep digging until confident or escalate to user.

What This Skill Does

When you invoke this skill, you're asking AI to:

  • Source every claim — Trace facts to verifiable sources
  • Quantify confidence — Express certainty as percentage
  • Verify independently — Cross-check from multiple sources
  • Loop until confident — Keep researching if <85% confidence
  • Escalate when stuck — Ask user if sources exhausted

The 150% Proof Rule

Dimension100% Core+50% Enhancement
SourcePrimary source identified+ Independent confirmation
ConfidencePercentage stated+ Reasoning documented
VerificationSingle source check+ Multi-source cross-validation
GapsNote uncertainties+ Active Loop150 to fill gaps

Confidence Level Framework

Level% RangeDescriptionAction Required
Verified95-100%Multiple primary sources, no contradictionsUse in critical decisions
Strong85-94%Reliable sources, minor uncertaintiesSafe for most purposes
Moderate75-84%Limited sources, some gapsFlag for verification
Weak50-74%Insufficient evidence, major gapsDo not use without confirmation
Insufficient<50%Contradictory or missingReject, research further

When to Use This Skill

  • Critical decisions — Where wrong facts cause real damage
  • Legal/compliance — Where accuracy has legal implications
  • Architecture decisions — Where claims drive major choices
  • Stakeholder communication — Where credibility matters
  • Any high-stakes claim — When you can't afford to be wrong

Execution Protocol

Step 1: CLAIM FORMULATION

State the fact clearly:

🔍 **Claim:** [Precise factual statement]
**Context:** [Why this matters]
**Critical Level:** [High/Medium/Low]

Step 2: PRIMARY SOURCE

Find the original source:

  • Locate primary evidence
  • Verify authenticity
  • Extract direct quote/data

Step 3: SECONDARY CONFIRMATION

Find independent corroboration:

  • Different source type
  • Cross-reference data
  • Check consistency

Step 4: CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT

Calculate confidence:

**Evidence Evaluation:**
├── Primary Source: [Quality assessment]
├── Secondary Sources: [Count and quality]
├── Contradictions: [Any found?]
└── Gaps: [What's missing?]

**Confidence:** [X]%
**Reasoning:** [Why this percentage]

Step 5: DECISION

Confidence ≥85%? 
├─ YES → Use fact with stated confidence
└─ NO → Enter Loop150

Loop150 Continuous Verification

When confidence <85%:

🔄 **LOOP150 ACTIVATED** (Current: [X]%)

ITERATION 1: EXPAND SOURCES
├── Identify new source types
├── Use alternative research methods
├── Broaden search scope
↓
ITERATION 2: DEEPER ANALYSIS
├── Drill into source details
├── Verify source credibility
├── Check contextual factors
↓
ITERATION 3: CROSS-VALIDATION
├── Compare against known facts
├── Test logical consistency
├── Seek expert corroboration
↓
RECALCULATE: New confidence = [Y]%

Continue loop until:
├─ ≥90% achieved → EXIT, proceed with confidence
└─ Sources exhausted → ESCALATE to user

Source Quality Criteria

🔍 RELIABILITY FACTORS:

  • Authority: Official, expert, or primary source?
  • Currency: How recent and up-to-date?
  • Objectivity: Free from bias or agenda?
  • Methodology: Sound research methods used?
  • Independence: Not dependent on other sources?

📊 EVIDENCE STRENGTH:

TypeStrengthExample
PrimaryHighOriginal data, first-hand
SecondaryMediumAnalysis of primary
TertiaryLowSummaries, reviews
StatisticalHighLarge sample, proper method
AnecdotalVariablePersonal experience

Output Format

🔍 **PROOF-GRADE 150 VERIFICATION**

**Claim:** [Precise factual statement]

**Primary Source:** 
- [File/location/date]
- "[Direct quote or data]"

**Secondary Sources:**
- [Source 2]: [Confirmation]
- [Source 3]: [Confirmation]

**Confidence Level:** [X]% 
**Reasoning:** [Why this level]

**Validation Method:** [How verified]
**Outstanding Issues:** [Any uncertainties]

**Status:** ✅ VERIFIED | ⚠️ NEEDS CONFIRMATION | ❌ INSUFFICIENT

Operational Rules

  1. EVERY CRITICAL CLAIM: Requires proof-grade validation
  2. SOURCE FIRST: Identify source before using fact
  3. CONFIDENCE REQUIRED: Every fact has percentage
  4. LOOP150 MANDATORY: <85% triggers verification loop
  5. TRANSPARENCY: Document all sources and reasoning
  6. ESCALATE HONESTLY: If sources exhausted, ask user

Failure Modes & Recovery

FailureDetectionRecovery
Unverified ClaimsFacts without sourcesImmediate verification, Loop150
OverconfidenceInflated percentagesRecalculate with scrutiny
Source BiasOnly confirming sourcesActively seek contradictions
Incomplete DocsMissing source trailDocument all sources now

Examples

❌ Without Proof-Grade

AI: "The API response time is fast enough"
Source: "Feels fast to me"
Result: Performance issues in production

✅ With Proof-Grade 150

🔍 PROOF-GRADE 150 VERIFICATION

Claim: "API response time is consistently under 200ms"

Primary Source:
- /tests/performance/load_test_results.json
- "p99 latency: 187ms across 10,000 requests"

Secondary Sources:
- Production monitoring (last 7 days): avg 156ms
- APM dashboard: p95 = 178ms

Confidence Level: 95%
Reasoning: Multiple measurement sources, consistent results,
production data confirms test environment findings.

Validation Method: Cross-referenced test data with production metrics

Status: ✅ VERIFIED FOR USE

Relationship to Other Skills

  • research-deep-150 → Gathers evidence
  • proof-grade-150 → Validates and quantifies confidence
  • integrity-check-150 → Final quality verification

Remember: Proof-grade isn't about being slow — it's about being trustworthy. A 95% confidence claim is more valuable than an unverified assertion. When stakes are high, proof-grade protects everyone.

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

007

무료

Security audit, hardening, threat modeling (STRIDE/PASTA), Red/Blue Team, OWASP checks, code review, incident response, and infrastructure security for any project.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

Guides the creation of agile user stories and Gherkin feature files. Use when the user wants to create a user story, write acceptance criteria, define Gherkin scenarios, or author BDD feature files. This should trigger for requests such as Create a user story; Write a user story; I need to write a user story. Part of cursor-rules-java project

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

Facilitates conversational discovery to create Architectural Decision Records (ADRs) for non-functional requirements using the ISO/IEC 25010:2023 quality model. Use when the user wants to document quality attributes, NFR decisions, security/performance/scalability architecture, or design systems with measurable quality criteria. This should trigger for requests such as Create ADR for Non-functional requirements; Document Non-functional requirements; Capture Non-functional requirements; Generate Non-functional requirements in an ADR. Part of cursor-rules-java project

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

Run a health check on an existing project: dependency audit, security scan, test runner detection, CI/CD evaluation, and missing configuration analysis. Maps the three execution gates (pre/in/post) from /10x-bootstrapper to an assessment framework for existing codebases. Reads optional context/foundation/stack-assessment.md from /10x-stack-assess to focus checks on identified gaps. Writes context/foundation/health-check.md with findings, prioritized fixes, and an agent-readiness verdict. Use when the user has an existing project and wants to verify its health before working with an agent. Trigger phrases: "health check", "check my project", "audit my project", "is my project healthy", "sprawdź projekt", "audyt projektu", "health-check", "project health". Use AFTER /10x-stack-assess (brownfield chain), BEFORE agent onboarding (m1-l4).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

10x-team

무료

You MUST use this when building projects end-to-end. Orchestrates all 12 team roles — automatically switches between CTO, architect, PM, engineers, SRE, security, DBA, QA, and EM based on the current phase of work. Starts with brainstorming before any implementation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

Use when you need to add or configure Maven plugins in your pom.xml — including quality tools (enforcer, surefire, failsafe, jacoco, pitest, spotbugs, pmd), security scanning (OWASP), code formatting (Spotless), version management, container image build (Jib), build information tracking, and benchmarking (JMH) — through a consultative, modular step-by-step approach that only adds what you actually need. This should trigger for requests such as Add Maven plugins in pom.xml; Improve Maven plugins in pom.xml. Part of cursor-rules-java project

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

aibot88/sec_skill_store52026년 5월 27일 업데이트

aibot88의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고