Reality check
Skill Speckledrattlesnakeinoculant470/claude-for-researchers/starter/.claude/skills/reality-check
Optimize Claude Code workflows for long-term physics and mathematics research projects with structured toolkits and practical guidance.
npx -y skills add Speckledrattlesnakeinoculant470/claude-for-researchers --skill reality-checkAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
2 things to look at
- no licenseNo license file was found in the repository. Code published without one is not open source by default, so using it at work is a question for whoever answers licensing questions where you are.
- 0 stars0 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, as published. Nobody here has run it
/reality-check
Re-examine a contested claim in isolation to detect sycophantic capitulation.
Use this when you have pushed back on a Claude answer and are not sure whether Claude revised correctly or just agreed to avoid conflict.
The problem this solves
When you say "are you sure?" or "that sign looks wrong," Claude will often revise toward your suggestion even if the original answer was correct. The revision is stated with the same confidence as the original. You have no way to tell from the reply whether Claude actually found an error or just yielded.
This skill runs the check in a way that is insulated from the prior exchange.
Usage
/reality-check "the residue at s=1/2 is +1/2, not -1/2"
/reality-check "the Euler product converges absolutely for Re(s) > 1"
/reality-check (no argument — re-examine the last contested claim)
Steps
Step 1 — Extract the claim. Identify the specific assertion: the formula, sign, step, or statement that was contested. Strip it of the conversational context — state it as a bare mathematical or physical claim.
Step 2 — Check it independently. Derive or verify the claim from scratch, using only:
- The definitions and conventions stated in CLAUDE.md
- The content of brief.tex or workbook.tex (the authoritative documents)
- First principles
Do NOT use the prior conversation as evidence. Do not let the earlier exchange influence this derivation. If the answer this time differs from the original, say so explicitly and explain why.
Step 3 — Compare and report.
| Outcome | Response |
|---|---|
| Same answer as original | "The original answer was correct. I yielded incorrectly — reverting to [original answer]. Here is the reasoning: ..." |
| Different answer | "The revision was correct. The original error was: ..." |
| Genuinely ambiguous | "I cannot resolve this from first principles. The specific ambiguity is: ..." |
Always name which answer you are standing behind at the end of the report.
Step 4 — If the original was right, correct the record. If any file was edited based on the incorrect revision (e.g., a sign in workbook.tex was changed), fix it back now. State which files were corrected.
When to run this without being asked
If you notice during a session that you have changed an answer after the user expressed doubt, and you did not flag the change explicitly, run this skill automatically. Do not wait for the user to catch the discrepancy.
Note on fresh-context checks
For a maximally reliable check, the user can open a new Claude Code session and ask the same question there. A fresh session has no memory of the prior exchange and will answer from scratch. If the fresh-session answer matches the original, that is strong evidence the original was right. This skill approximates that check within the current session; for critical claims, use a fresh session.