Skill: malleus35/agora-doubt-list (version 2.2.0)

--- name: doubt-list description: | Generate a Cartesian verification artifact before trusting a plan, claim, implementation, or release. Turn confidence into explicit checks. version: 0.1.0 --- # Doubt List ## Purpose Convert confidence into verifiable skepticism. This skill asks: what must be checked before we trust this? It is not for performative negativity. It exists to separate fact, inference, preference, and guess. ## Activate when Use this skill when: - a plan sounds persuasive but has not been stress-tested - a release is nearing shipment - a claim is important, risky, or governance-sensitive - the team wants a verification checklist before execution - consequences of error are high ## Inputs Expected inputs may include: - a feature or release plan - a design proposal - a decision memo - a claim or assertion set - implementation notes or test results ## Classification rule Before generating doubts, classify each major statement as one of: - Fact — directly established or evidenced - Inference — reasoned from available evidence - Preference — normative or taste-based judgment - Guess — plausible but currently unverified Unclassified claims are not ready for trust. ## Doubt categories Always produce doubts across five categories. ### 1. Happy path doubts - What must go right for the main story to hold? - Which "obvious" success condition has not actually been verified? ### 2. Edge case doubts - What happens under uncommon but realistic conditions? - What retries, partial failures, or weird inputs have been ignored? ### 3. Boundary doubts - What breaks at minimum, maximum, empty, overloaded, concurrent, or delayed conditions? ### 4. Ambiguity doubts - Which terms or promises could be interpreted in more than one way? - Which claims sound specific but are not operationally defined? ### 5. Evil demon scenarios - What if the most confidence-inducing assumption is false? - What if the evidence is incomplete, stale, biased, or misread? - What catastrophic but low-frequency scenario would embarrass the team later? ## Procedure ### Step 1 — State the object of doubt Name exactly what is being reviewed. ### Step 2 — Classify key claims Mark each important claim as Fact / Inference / Preference / Guess. ### Step 3 — Generate doubts across all five categories Do not stop at happy path concerns. ### Step 4 — Convert doubts into checks Every serious doubt should map to a concrete verification action. ### Step 5 — Assign release posture Conclude whether the work is: - Clear enough to proceed - Proceed with conditions - Do not proceed yet ## Output artifact ```markdown ## Doubt List ### Object of Review - ... ### Claim Classification - Claim: ... -> Fact / Inference / Preference / Guess ### Happy Path Doubts - Doubt: ... - Verification: ... ### Edge Case Doubts - Doubt: ... - Verification: ... ### Boundary Doubts - Doubt: ... - Verification: ... ### Ambiguity Doubts - Doubt: ... - Verification: ... ### Evil Demon Scenarios - Doubt: ... - Verification: ... ### Clarity Gate - Clear: ... - Not clear: ... ### Release Posture - Proceed / Proceed with conditions / Do not proceed yet ``` ## Guardrails - Do not confuse disagreement with evidence. - Do not mark a guess as fact because the team likes it. - Do not stop at implementation QA; plans, memos, and claims also need doubt. - Do not generate abstract doubts without corresponding verification actions. ## Failure modes Common failure modes: - only checking the happy path - writing doubts that are too vague to test - skipping claim classification - treating rhetorical confidence as evidence - using this skill to block progress without naming concrete conditions for trust ## Escalation points Escalate when: - the key claim cannot be verified with currently available evidence - the team is relying on guesswork for a high-consequence decision - release pressure is overriding clarity - terms in the proposal are too ambiguous for meaningful review ## Completion condition This skill is complete only when a reviewer could pick up the output and know what to verify next.


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)