agentsclimarketplace
Sign in

Confidence

Skill 3clyp50/confidence/skills/confidence

Audit choices made by an AI after it completes work. Use when the user invokes /confidence or $confidence, asks which decisions were uncertain or poorly made, wants a pre-merge decision audit, suspects a working fix may be too narrow, or wants to detect weak evidence, omitted validation, premature success, or choices influenced by pressure to satisfy or please. Review decisions and their evidence, not code line by line.From its SKILL.md

Install
npx -y skills add 3clyp50/confidence --skill confidence

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

2 things to look at

  • 22 days oldThe repository was created 22 days ago. New is not bad, but a brand new repository carrying a familiar-sounding name is the shape a typosquat arrives in, and there has been no time for anyone else to find a problem with it.
  • 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

SKILL.md

2.9 KB, 515 tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it

Confidence

Audit the choices the agent owned. Treat code, tool output, and test results as evidence, not as the object of a conventional review.

Audit

  1. Reconstruct the material choices made during the task from the conversation and available artifacts. Include choices about scope, approach, defaults, architecture, fallbacks, generality, stopping conditions, and verification. Include consequential choices not to investigate, test, or mention something.
  2. Separate the user's explicit decisions from the agent's choices. Do not relitigate a user decision unless the agent should have challenged a concrete risk or contradiction.
  3. Test each agent-owned choice:
    • Did the available evidence establish it?
    • Did it solve the underlying class of problem or only the observed case?
    • Were plausible alternatives dismissed without evidence?
    • Did pressure to finish, agree, reassure, satisfy, or please lower the standard?
    • Did the success claim exceed what was actually verified?
  4. Report every material choice that is uncertain, weakly supported, over-specific, poorly made, or biased toward a pleasing completion. Include a poor choice even if the agent felt confident when making it.
  5. Do not invent doubt to make the audit look useful. If no material confidence debt is found, say No material confidence debt found.

Do not reveal or fabricate private chain-of-thought. Report concise conclusions supported by visible evidence.

Output

Start with ## Confidence audit and one sentence defining the audited scope. Rank findings by potential consequence.

For each finding, use:

### <choice>
- Signal: <low confidence | weak evidence | over-specific | pleasing bias | premature success | omission>
- Why: <the evidence gap or decision defect>
- Risk: <what can fail or remain dormant>
- Correction: <the decision that should replace it, or the smallest validation needed>

Use more than one signal when warranted. State Pleasing bias: none evidenced after the findings when no finding has concrete evidence of agreement, reassurance, or completion bias. Do not treat a warm tone or user agreement alone as evidence of sycophancy.

End with one of:

  • Verdict: revise before accepting. when a material choice should change.
  • Verdict: validate before accepting. when evidence can settle the remaining uncertainty.
  • Verdict: no decision-level blocker found. when the audit is clean.

Do not summarize the diff, praise the implementation, or pad the result with high-confidence decisions.

What ships with it: 1 file

208 B alongside SKILL.md

agents/

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 326,851. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.