agent-interface-design
Design tools, scripts, and CLIs that an agent will call, so the interface teaches its own use instead of a wall of prose and…
Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine
$ npx -y skills add Neeeophytee/finding-unknowns-skills --skill assumption-test --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/assumption-testContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine
name: assumption-test description: Test a consequential technical assumption with a small, falsifiable experiment before committing to an approach. Use when a plan depends on uncertain runtime, integration, or data behavior that inspection alone cannot establish. Not for preference interviews or routine implementation.
A plausible assumption can survive every planning conversation and still fail on contact with the system. Turn the consequential uncertainty into a question an experiment can answer.
1. Read the request, relevant code, and existing evidence. If inspection already settles the question, cite that evidence and stop; do not manufacture an experiment. If several assumptions remain, select the one whose failure would most change the approach. 2. State the assumption as an observable prediction. Define what would refute it, what would support it within the tested scope, and what would leave it inconclusive. Set those criteria before observing the result. 3. Design the smallest discriminating experiment. Use an isolated fixture or test environment, the real component under question where available, and a bounded number of operations. Name what the setup cannot represent; a mock's behavior is not evidence about its provider. 4. Run the experiment within the user's authorized scope. Preserve the command, relevant inputs, actual output, and environment details needed to reproduce it. If a tool or dependency is unavailable, report the experiment as unrun or inconclusive, with the missing prerequisite. 5. Close with the assumption, method, observation, verdict (**supported within scope**, **refuted**, or **inconclusive**), and the planning decision this evidence changes. Recommend the next discriminating check only if it could change that decision. Keep temporary code separate from the production implementation.
14 installable skills that help your coding agent find what you don't know — before it gets expensive to fix. The map is not the territory. Your prompt is a map; the codebase and the real world are the territory.
Design tools, scripts, and CLIs that an agent will call, so the interface teaches its own use instead of a wall of prose and…
Surface the user's unknown unknowns before work starts. Use when the user is entering an unfamiliar codebase area, an unfamiliar…
Generate several genuinely different throwaway variations (designs, approaches, drafts) for the user to react to. Use when the…
After a working session, produce a report on what changed plus a quiz the user must pass before merging. Use when the user asks…
Audit the instructions an agent already carries — CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md, skills, tool descriptions — for contradictions,…
Keep a running implementation-notes.md during a build, logging every deviation from the plan and every discovered edge case. Use…