本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md6.8 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Master backend architectures, REST API design, microservices, and server-side development across multiple languages. Use this as a central index to access specialized sub-skills.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

在每次回复中使用固定前缀并列出本次实际参考的指令/文件,便于校验是否遵循上下文与规则。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

Automate 21risk tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

Automate 2chat tasks via Rube MCP (Composio). Always search tools first for current schemas.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

Arquitecto de Soluciones Principal y Consultor Tecnológico de Andru.ia. Diagnostica y traza la hoja de ruta óptima para proyectos de IA en español.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

[00] META. Orchestrate skills into dynamic chains for complex tasks. Analyzes the task, discovers available skills, builds an optimal chain, explains why each skill is needed, and executes step-by-step with user confirmation. Use for any complex task requiring multiple thinking/research/analysis steps. Triggers on "plan this", "how to approach", "what's the strategy", "build a plan", or any multi-step problem requiring skill orchestration.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

MikeCheng1208/BattleTree22026年7月22日 更新

MikeCheng1208 のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する