agentsclimarketplace

Confidence fragility review

Skill markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills/skills/confidence-fragility-review

Reviewable capability layer for coding agents. Portable skills, delivery gates, workflow patterns, and verification-first engineering.

Install
npx -y skills add markoblogo/abvx-agent-skills --skill confidence-fragility-review

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

One thing to look at

  • 4 stars4 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

Review whether an artifact's confident claims are backed by evidence, tests, contracts, or operational safeguards. Use before shipping, publishing docs, accepting generated plans, or trusting a workflow that may present fragile assumptions as certainty.

The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.

SKILL.md

2.0 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Confidence Fragility Review

Stress-test the gap between how confident an artifact sounds and how much evidence actually supports it.

Use When

  • a plan, release note, README, landing page, or SET bundle sounds ready but proof is thin;
  • generated docs imply stronger guarantees than the repo can support;
  • final review needs a fear-oriented lens before ship;
  • a user asks what could go wrong if people trust the artifact at face value.

Workflow

  1. Identify confident claims:
    • readiness claims;
    • safety claims;
    • completeness claims;
    • compatibility claims;
    • performance or reliability claims.
  2. For each claim, ask what backs it:
    • tests or CI;
    • schema or type contracts;
    • runtime checks;
    • docs links;
    • human approval;
    • explicit limitations.
  3. Classify the concern:
    • tactical: a specific path can fail;
    • structural: a category of failure has no defense;
    • epistemic: confidence is not earned by evidence.
  4. Separate justified fragility from projected worry.
  5. Recommend the smallest evidence step that would make confidence warranted.

Output Shape

Use:

  • verdict: CONFIDENCE_WARRANTED or FRAGILITY_MASKED;
  • confidence claims reviewed;
  • evidence found;
  • fragility register: tactical, structural, or epistemic;
  • smallest proof step.

Guardrails

  • Do not turn this into a generic risk audit.
  • Do not demand proof for every harmless claim.
  • Do not perform security analysis unless the artifact makes security claims.
  • Be explicit when a fear is plausible but not evidenced.

Provenance

Adapted from the anxiety-reader pattern in aself101/agents-and-pipelines, reframed as a compact confidence-vs-evidence review skill.

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. 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.