Agentprivacy horizon gate

Skill mitchuski/agentprivacy-skills/agentprivacy-skills-v5/meta/agentprivacy-horizon-gate

Privacy-first AI agent skills for Claude Code. 80+ skills and personas for ZKP, decentralized identity, dual-agent architecture, and sovereign AI

Install

npx -y skills add mitchuski/agentprivacy-skills --skill agentprivacy-horizon-gate

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

1 stars1 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

The held-out-gate discipline: a claimed improvement is worth nothing until it survives an adversarial validation it cannot tune. Activates when accepting or rejecting a claimed optimization/fix/result, when designing a benchmark or acceptance gate, when a change "looks cheaper" on a probe, or when reasoning about whether an attestation can be trusted. Names the failure mode — the nonce-island mirage — and the bounded-change loop that earns trust. In the City of Mages this is Dokimé's 🪨 Ceremony of the 9024 Witnesses at the Horizon District.

The file declares its own license as Apache-2.0. 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

5.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

The Horizon Gate

A claim is worth nothing until it survives the witnesses it did not choose.

"The cheaper-looking claim that cannot face the witnesses it did not choose is not progress."

Spell: state-the-waste → smallest-fix → confirm-or-reject-with-metrics → assay(9024)

1. The principle: held-out, un-tuneable, adversarial

An improvement validated only on a self-chosen probe is not knowledge — it is a guess that flattered its examiner. Trust requires a gate the claimant cannot tune: the test cases are derived from a hash of the claimant's own work (Fiat-Shamir), so they cannot be picked and cannot be charmed (C69). This generalises the City's witness-discipline: an attestation is only as good as the witnesses the attester did not choose.

The canonical instance is ecdsa.fail: a claimed-cheaper circuit must pass 9024 = 141 × 64 Fiat-Shamir-drawn test points — and any structural change reshuffles which 9024 you face. A variant that is cheaper and passes a 2048-shot probe routinely fails the full set.

2. The failure mode: the nonce-island mirage

A nonce-island mirage is a claim that looked cheaper on a small probe and dies on the full held-out set. It is the single most common way a self-improvement loop fools itself: it tunes, implicitly, to the cases it can see. Name it and reject it — however cheap it looked. A 2048-shot pass is a hint, never a result. If you cannot state why a win is structural rather than probe-fitted, treat it as a mirage until the full gate clears.

3. The bounded-change loop (RCI · "Tony → Anton")

Earn trust one bounded change at a time:

Before: state the exact waste or risk · the evidence (file, function, knob, metric, prior note) · the expected effect on each axis (cost, correctness, and any invariants) · the single smallest fix.
After: confirm or reject with metrics. Classify every failure as structural (a real limit), held-out-sensitive (a mirage), or noise. Stop a brute-force sweep the moment failures repeat without a source-backed reason.

This is RCI (criticise → improve, bounded) and SkillOpt (a bounded edit accepted only on strict held-out improvement) made a single discipline. No inference-time magic; just the refusal to accept un-validated cheapness.

4. Designing a gate (when you build the benchmark)

Derive the test set from the candidate, not the author (Fiat-Shamir / hash-of-the-op-stream) so it cannot be tuned to.
Validity is rejection, not penalty: correctness, plus every structural invariant the artifact must preserve (for circuits: reversibility, phase-cleanliness, forward∘inverse = identity).
Size the held-out set for the reshuffling: any structural change should change which cases you face.
No silent caps: if the gate samples or truncates, log what was dropped — silent truncation reads as "covered everything" when it didn't.

5. Decision patterns

A change "looks cheaper"? → run the full held-out gate before believing it. Probe pass = hint only.
Accepting a claim/attestation? → ask which witnesses the claimant chose; trust scales with the ones they didn't.
A win you can't explain structurally? → label it a candidate mirage; hold it for full validation.
Reviewing your own optimization? → state-the-waste → smallest-fix → confirm-or-reject-with-metrics. One bounded change.

Authored 2026-06-09 from the ecdsa.fail trust task and the RCI / SkillOpt papers. The gold that fears the stone was never gold.