archaeologist
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.
Your agents have a theory. This skill makes them ask, “What would prove me wrong?”
Claude Code
$ npx -y skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong --agent claude-code
Codex
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a codex
Cursor
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a cursor
Gemini CLI
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a gemini-cli
GitHub Copilot
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a github-copilot
OpenCode
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a opencode
Windsurf
$ npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -a windsurf
Your agents have a theory.
This skill makes them ask, “What would prove me wrong?”
Before / After · Install · The loop · Read the skill
Finding evidence for a plausible fix is easy. Finding evidence against it is what makes the claim trustworthy.
prove-me-wrong names what would disprove a claim, considers a competing explanation, and runs the cheapest realistic test that could prove the fix wrong.
Use bet-on-it before an action to commit to a prediction. Use prove-me-wrong once a claim or fix is favored to design an attack that could defeat it.
The duplicate-order bug came from double-clicks. I debounced the button, the browser test passes, and the issue is fixed.
The test confirms the path the patch was designed to improve. It does not challenge the explanation.
Claim: Debouncing the button prevents duplicate durable orders.
Smallest falsifier: One logical checkout still creates two order IDs.
Strongest plausible competitor: A retried payment callback reaches non-idempotent order creation.
Cheapest safe attack: Send one checkout with a fixed idempotency key,
replay the callback, and count authoritative order records.
If the replay creates two orders, the claim is falsified. If callback visibility is unavailable, the result is unavailable—not support. The goal is not more tests; it is one realistic attack that can make the favored story lose.
Install with the Skills CLI:
npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong
Install globally for all projects:
npx skills add Lum1104/prove-me-wrong -g
The repository's root SKILL.md is directly discoverable. The skill adds no runtime, service, or testing framework.
In agents that automatically select installed skills, the description can trigger it when a leading diagnosis or fix has initial support. Invoke it explicitly when a plausible fix is starting to feel proven:
Use the prove-me-wrong skill on my cache-key hypothesis.
Use the prove-me-wrong skill before we accept this race-condition fix.
Use the prove-me-wrong skill to find a realistic case where this patch still fails.
In Codex, use $prove-me-wrong. In Claude Code, use /prove-me-wrong. Invocation syntax may vary in other agents.
Use it when:
Skip it for typos and directly observable mechanical edits.
Claim
↓
Smallest falsifier
↓
Strongest plausible competitor
↓
Cheapest safe attack
↓
Reject, narrow, survive, or remain unverified
If the falsifier occurs, the agent abandons or narrows the claim and removes speculative edits that have lost their justification. If the claim survives, the report says exactly which attack it survived—not that the theory was proved forever.
For a completed nontrivial fix, the agent constructs one realistic residual failure from the same workflow:
It avoids arbitrary edge-case generation. The counterexample must be plausible enough to change confidence in the actual task.
prove-me-wrong is targeted falsification, not exhaustive verification. It cannot:
bet-on-it and prove-me-wrong may intentionally activate together:
| Skill | Primary question |
|---|---|
bet-on-it | What do I predict before the next causally uncertain action? |
prove-me-wrong | What observation or competitor could defeat the claim I now favor? |
For final workflow evidence, use no-vibes. For high-impact execution, use red-button. Each skill remains independently useful.
MIT
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 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.
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.
A development methodology for coding agents that makes the agent brainstorm before building, follow plans, run parallel work and finish branches in a disciplined way. You get fewer skipped steps and more consistent results from your coding assistant.
Helps you take a change from a rough idea or bug report through to a tested, reviewed result, with each step handled by a focused skill. Its skills cover pinning down domain terms, designing module interfaces, diagnosing hard bugs, and reviewing changes against your repo's coding standards.
Gives your coding agent a planning, testing and review routine to follow on every task. It plans before building, checks changes with tests, has a fresh reviewer look for regressions, and saves repeated wins as reusable skills.
Developer tools for working on the React codebase itself. Provides skills for extracting error messages, managing and debugging feature flags across release channels, running Flow type checks, and fixing lint and formatting issues before committing.
Your agents have a theory. This skill makes them ask, “What would prove me wrong?” Install it with the command on its page. It includes prove-me-wrong. Its skills do not fire on their own yet. Free and open source.
Is this plugin yours?
Claim it with GitHubSubmit a pluginPromote it