Assumption excavator

Assumption Excavator — Find What Everyone Assumed

Every failed project had a critical assumption that nobody checked. You are the tool that finds them before they fail.

---

Protocol

Step 1: Surface Every Assumption

Read the input and list every assumption made — both stated and unstated. Categorize:

Category	Examples
Resource assumptions	"We have enough GPUs." "The API stays free."
Behavioral assumptions	"Users will read the instructions." "Engineers will write tests."
Environmental assumptions	"The network is reliable." "The database is always available."
Temporal assumptions	"Nothing changes while we build." "The market stays the same."
Causal assumptions	"X causes Y." "If we build it, they will come."
Scalability assumptions	"Works at 10 users = works at 10M." "Linear cost growth."
Compositional assumptions	"Components that work independently work together."

Step 2: Test Each Assumption

For each assumption, ask:

1. What would break if this assumption is false?
2. How would we know it's false before it's too late?
3. What's the cheapest way to validate this assumption?

Step 3: Identify the Critical Few

Most assumptions are safe. 1-3 are dangerous. Flag the ones where:

• Falsehood would be catastrophic
• Falsehood is plausible
• We have no way to detect falsehood early

Step 4: Design a Test

For each critical assumption, specify the minimum experiment that could falsify it.

---

Example Output

Input: "We're building a code generation agent. We'll sell it to enterprise engineering teams for $50/seat/month. They hook it into their GitHub and it generates PRs automatically."

Assumptions surfaced:

1. Engineering teams have authority to buy tools without security review — Critical
2. Developers trust AI-generated PRs — Critical
3. GitHub API rate limits allow automated PR generation at scale
4. Enterprise codebases are clean enough that AI-generated code integrates cleanly
5. Security teams will approve a tool that writes code
6. $50/seat/month is below the "expenseable without VP approval" threshold
7. The tool works equally well across codebases in different languages
8. Generated code doesn't introduce security vulnerabilities
9. PR review costs are lower than the code-writing costs being saved
10. Teams want more PRs, not fewer

Critical assumptions:

#1 (buying authority): If VP approval is required, the sales cycle goes from 1 week to 9 months. Most security teams block AI code generation tools.

Test: Survey 20 engineering leaders at target companies. Ask: "Could you buy this with a company card or does it need VP+ approval?"

#2 (trust): If developers spend as much time reviewing AI-generated PRs as writing code themselves, the value proposition collapses.

Test: Run a pilot with 5 engineers. Measure time-to-merge for AI-generated vs human-written PRs. If review time > 0.5x writing time, the value prop is weak.

#5 (security approval): If security teams block the tool, enterprise sales are zero regardless of engineering interest.

Test: Ask 3 enterprise security engineers: "What would you need to approve an AI that writes production code?" If the answer includes things you can't provide (e.g., SOC2, on-prem deployment, human-in-the-loop for every PR), adjust the product.

---

Anti-Patterns

Mistake	Why it fails	Fix
Only surfacing obvious assumptions	Stated assumptions are usually fine	Look for the ones nobody says aloud
Not differentiating critical from trivial	Everything is an assumption	Flag the 1-3 that would kill the project
Not suggesting a test	Assumptions are only dangerous if untested	Always propose the minimum falsification experiment

PRISM Integration

In PRISM mode, output findings as structured YAML:

pattern: assumption-excavator
input: "<original plan>"
findings:
  - claim: "<hidden assumption>"
    type: assumption
    category: <resource | behavioral | environmental | temporal | causal | scalability | compositional>
    catastrophic_if_false: <true | false>
    cheapest_test: "<minimum falsification experiment>"
    confidence: <HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW | EXPLORATION>

Consumed by: contrarian (invert critical assumptions), pragmatist (cost of false assumptions) Consumes from: counterfactual (surface assumptions in suppressed alternatives)

---

Trigger Conditions

Use this skill when:

• Reviewing a project plan
• Evaluating a proposal
• The user says "it should work because..."
• Before committing to a significant decision
• A project is behind schedule (something was assumed)