prove-me-wrong
Your agents have a theory. This skill makes them ask, “What would prove me wrong?”
A skill that makes Claude Code verify end-to-end outcomes across components, environments, and external systems before it treats a task as complete, labeling the evidence it gathers.
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add Lum1104/no-vibes --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a codex
Cursor
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a cursor
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a gemini-cli
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a github-copilot
OpenCode
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a opencode
Windsurf
$ npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -a windsurf
Your agents call it done on vibes.
This skill makes them prove it.
Install · Before / After · How it works · Read the skill
Passing tests is not the same as completing the user's task.
The UI test may stop at a mock. The API test may never exercise authorization. The worker may never consume the queued job. The external service may never send the webhook that changes the user's state.
no-vibes defines the user-visible outcome, traces the critical end-to-end flow, and reports what was verified, inferred, not verified, or blocked.
Install with the Skills CLI:
npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes
Install globally for all projects:
npx skills add Lum1104/no-vibes -g
Then invoke it explicitly when the outcome matters:
Use $no-vibes to implement subscription cancellation and verify the real user flow.
Done. The cancellation endpoint is implemented, all unit tests pass, and the app builds successfully.
What is missing: no cancellation was sent to the billing provider, no webhook was processed, and no loss of premium access was observed.
The implementation and local checks are complete. The API authorization and entitlement update were verified locally. The provider cancellation and webhook path used mocks, so the subscription flow is not verified end to end.
The second report is less triumphant and more useful. It tells you what is known, what is assumed, and what still needs to happen.
Write the requested result as one observable sentence:
A customer cancels a subscription and loses premium access.
Cancel click -> authorized API call -> billing provider cancellation
-> webhook -> entitlement update -> refreshed UI
The trace stays proportional to the task. It is not a diagram of the whole system.
| Status | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Verified | The claim itself was directly observed with a relevant check in a named environment |
| Inferred | Supported by evidence, but not directly observed |
| Not verified | The claim was not exercised; available evidence covers only a narrower proxy |
| Blocked | A concrete dependency, permission, environment, or safety boundary prevented verification |
A unit test can verify the behavior it directly exercises. It cannot establish a broader deployed flow or external side effect that it never observed.
The agent may call the outcome complete only after observing it end to end in an environment representative of that claim. If an essential boundary was mocked, skipped, or unavailable, it narrows the claim instead of upgrading confidence.
Outcome: A customer cancels and loses premium access.
Verified: API authorization and entitlement update in the local stack.
Inferred: The refreshed UI will hide premium controls after entitlement refresh.
Not verified: Live provider cancellation and webhook delivery.
Blocked: No provider sandbox credentials were available.
Conclusion: Implementation is complete; the end-to-end outcome is not verified.
Empty lines can disappear. An unverified essential boundary cannot.
Explicit prompts:
Use $no-vibes before coding this password-reset flow.
Use $no-vibes to audit whether this PR proves the requested outcome.
Use $no-vibes when you report completion; separate observation from inference.
The full agent-facing workflow lives in SKILL.md. The repository is intentionally small: instructions only, with no runtime service.
| Skill | Use it when |
|---|---|
bet-on-it | A diagnostic change needs a prediction recorded before the result |
prove-me-wrong | A current claim needs an active attempt to falsify it |
archaeologist | Repository history may explain unusual code or constrain a change |
red-button | A high-impact operation deserves scenario-specific safeguards |
Each repository is standalone. Install only the behavior you want.
MIT © 2026 Lum1104
Your agents have a theory. This skill makes them ask, “What would prove me wrong?”
A skill that makes Claude Code check Git history before changing unusual or defensive code, mature APIs, dependencies, or architecture, to uncover hidden constraints behind existing code.
A skill for Claude Code that makes the agent state a prediction about the result before changing code to fix behavior from an uncertain cause, so the next action tests the hypothesis.
Skills for working on Playwright itself, covering development of new APIs and CLI commands, CI failure analysis, cherry-picking to release branches, triaging bug reports, and querying test results. Aimed at Playwright contributors and maintainers.
The open and composable observability and data visualization platform. Visualize metrics, logs, and traces from multiple sources like Prometheus, Loki, Elasticsearch, InfluxDB, Postgres and many more.
Skills for evaluating and red-teaming LLM apps with Promptfoo. Covers writing and running eval suites, connecting Promptfoo to models and APIs, and running and rerunning redteam security scans.
Skills for evaluating AI agents, RAG pipelines and LLM apps with DeepEval metrics, and for tracing those apps with OpenTelemetry or DeepEval tracing into Confident AI.
A skill that makes Claude Code verify end-to-end outcomes across components, environments, and external systems before it treats a task as complete, labeling the evidence it gathers. Install it with the command on its page. It includes no-vibes. Its skills do not fire on their own yet. Free and open source.
Is this plugin yours?
Claim it with GitHubSubmit a pluginPromote it