Decision bias check
Skill cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents/skills/decision-bias-check
11 problem-shaped skills backed by 97 sourced reasoning patterns — Curie to Toulmin, as Claude Code agents. Every claim cites its source; a pre-commit gate blocks unsourced constants. Install the gates alone in 30s (zetetic-gates). The only agent system where "I don't know" is a feature.
npx -y skills add cdeust/zetetic-team-subagents --skill decision-bias-checkAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 7 stars7 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.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Audit the decision before it ships. Use for "are we sure about this?", high-stakes choices made on fast intuition, plans with no failure scenario, estimates that are suspiciously optimistic, metrics being gamed (Goodhart), unfalsifiable claims, negotiation prep, or strategies that break in extreme conditions.
SKILL.md
2.8 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Decision Bias Check
Problem shape: a decision, plan, or evaluation is about to be committed and nobody has run the adversarial pass: which bias produced it, what would refute it, how it behaves in the tails, and whether the metric still measures what it was meant to.
Relevant geniuses
| Agent | Use when |
|---|---|
| kahneman | fast intuition on a high-stakes call; no pre-mortem; estimate needs a reference class; an easier question was answered instead of the hard one |
| taleb | exposure to volatility unclassified (fragile/robust/antifragile); improvement always by addition; decision-makers carry no downside |
| popper | claim has no observation that could refute it; only easy confirmations offered as evidence; plan too big to test piecemeal |
| simon | optimizing where satisficing is rational; the search space needs decomposing before choosing |
| boyd | adversarial setting — the other side adapts; tempo and orientation matter more than the single best move |
| zhuangzi | the metric has become the target (Goodhart); the evaluation framework itself needs auditing |
| ibnalhaytham | an authority's claim taken on trust — systematic doubt with controlled isolation of variables |
| rogerfisher | multi-stakeholder deadlock — separate interests from positions, find the BATNA and the zone of agreement |
Invocation
- Pick the best-fit agent above. If two or more fit, run
tools/genius-invoker.sh route "<problem>"and take the top ranked match. - Load it:
tools/genius-invoker.sh invoke <agent> "<problem>", then readagents/genius/<agent>.mdin full. - Apply the agent's
<workflow>step by step and answer in its<output-format>. The output names the specific bias/failure with its evidence — not a generic "consider other perspectives". - Typical chain: kahneman audits the intuition → popper designs the severe
test → taleb classifies the tail exposure. Run via
tools/genius-invoker.sh compose kahneman popper -- "<problem>". - If no shape above matches, use a standard team agent instead.
Refuse when
- The requester wants validation, not audit — a bias check that cannot change the decision is theater.
- The decision is already irreversible and the check would only assign blame.