agentleFS
fatih-developerfatih-developer/fth-skills/skills/assumption-checker/SKILL.md

assumption-checker

Skill7 starsChanged 43 days agoMITView on GitHub

Before starting a task or taking a critical step, surface and verify the assumptions the agent is making. Checks 4 types - technical (libraries, APIs), data (files, formats), business logic (rules, scope), and user intent (what the user actually wants). Triggers on ambiguous requests, multi-step tasks, or whenever 'are you sure', 'check first', 'don't assume' appears.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

9 rules. About 0 are common, 9 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈9

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Before acting, stop and surface the assumptions you are making.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Run an assumption scan on every new task.

    line 17
  3. Distinctive:

    Check verifiable assumptions with tools before asking the user:

    line 126
  4. Distinctive:

    Update the assumption table: VERIFIABLE → VERIFIED or RISKY

    line 132
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not start the related step until answers arrive

    line 141
  6. Distinctive:

    All assumptions were already verified in previous steps

    line 149
  7. Distinctive:

    Never skip assumption checking for irreversible actions, regardless of task simplicity.

    line 156
  8. Distinctive:

    Keep scans concise — table format, not paragraphs.

    line 157
  9. Distinctive:

    Verify before asking — don't ask the user things you can check yourself.

    line 158

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Assumption Checker Protocol

Before acting, stop and surface the assumptions you are making. Verify what you can, ask about what you cannot. Goal: catch wrong assumptions before building on them.

Core principle: Catching a wrong assumption now is far cheaper than discovering it 10 minutes later.


When to Activate

At Task Start

Run an assumption scan on every new task. Especially when:

  • Task is ambiguous or missing information
  • Phrasing is open to interpretation ("update", "fix", "clean up")
  • Task involves irreversible actions
  • External dependencies exist (API, files, database)

Before Critical Steps

Re-scan during execution when:

  • Previous step output was unexpected
  • A new dependency emerged
  • User changed direction

4 Assumption Types

Technical Assumptions

Beliefs about environment, tools, and infrastructure.

  • "Is this library installed?" → verifiable, check it
  • "Is this API accessible?" → verifiable, test it
  • "Does this work on this OS?" → platform-dependent

Data Assumptions

Beliefs about files, formats, and data structures.

  • "Does this file exist?" → verifiable, check it
  • "Does this CSV have headers?" → verifiable, inspect it
  • "All rows are in the same format" → verify with sample

Business Logic Assumptions

Beliefs about rules, scope, and requirements.

  • "Delete means soft delete" → ambiguous, ask
  • "All users are affected" → scope unclear, ask
  • "Date format is DD/MM/YYYY" → needs confirmation

User Intent Assumptions

Beliefs about what the user actually wants.

  • "Refactor = don't change behavior" → ask
  • "Quick = not production quality" → ask
  • "Update = keep existing, add new" → ask
  • "Clean up = delete? archive? organize?" → ambiguous, ask

Confidence Levels

Assign a confidence level to each assumption:

LevelMeaningAction
VERIFIEDChecked and confirmedProceed
VERIFIABLECan be checked with a tool/commandCheck now
UNCERTAINCannot be verified, open to interpretationAsk the user
RISKYIf wrong, causes significant damageMust ask

Output Format

Task Start Scan

ASSUMPTION CHECK — Task Start
Assumptions found: N
Verified: N | Checking: N | Need to ask: N

## Technical
| Assumption | Confidence | Action |
|------------|------------|--------|
| [assumption] | VERIFIED/VERIFIABLE/UNCERTAIN/RISKY | [action] |

## Data
| Assumption | Confidence | Action |
|------------|------------|--------|
| [assumption] | ... | [action] |

## Business Logic
| Assumption | Confidence | Action |
|------------|------------|--------|
| [assumption] | ... | [action] |

## User Intent
| Assumption | Confidence | Action |
|------------|------------|--------|
| [assumption] | ... | [action] |

[Verifiable assumptions being checked now...]
[Questions for uncertain/risky assumptions:]

? [Question 1]
? [Question 2]

Pre-Step Scan (lighter format)

ASSUMPTION CHECK — Before [step name]
New assumptions: N found

| Assumption | Type | Confidence | Action |
|------------|------|------------|--------|
| [assumption] | Technical/Data/Logic/Intent | ... | ... |

[Questions or "All assumptions verified, proceeding."]

Verification Protocol

Check verifiable assumptions with tools before asking the user:

  • File exists? → check filesystem
  • Library installed? → check import
  • JSON field present? → inspect data
  • API reachable? → test endpoint

Update the assumption table: VERIFIABLE → VERIFIED or RISKY


Question Rules

  • Ask at most 3 questions at a time — don't overwhelm the user
  • Ask riskiest first — RISKY > UNCERTAIN
  • Use yes/no or multiple choice — not open-ended
  • Do not start the related step until answers arrive

When to Skip

  • Task is single-step, clear, and easily reversible
  • User said "just do it, make your own assumptions"
  • All assumptions were already verified in previous steps
  • Repeated task — same structure worked before

Guardrails

  • Never skip assumption checking for irreversible actions, regardless of task simplicity.
  • Keep scans concise — table format, not paragraphs.
  • Verify before asking — don't ask the user things you can check yourself.
  • Cross-skill: works with checkpoint-guardian (risk gates) and task-decomposer (plan validation).

Coexistence with Other Gates

Clarification gates follow one precedence (see @ecosystem-reasoning): 1. @project-focus-first → 2. @ask-first-act-later → 3. @assumption-checker → 4. @plan-hardener. Run at most one gate per request — the first whose condition holds — and skip any gate whose questions were already answered in this conversation. @checkpoint-guardian is separate: it always applies before irreversible actions.

You are gate 3. If gate 1 or 2 already ran for this request, do not ask new questions: list the remaining assumptions with their confidence and ask at most one question, only for a high-risk unverified assumption.

References

  • references/EXAMPLES.md — worked assumption scans for ambiguous requests such as "clean up the database". Read it when the expected output format or level of detail is unclear.

🔗 Next Steps & Handoffs

<!-- BEGIN GENERATED: handoffs (generated from the ecosystem workflow map by build_ecosystems.py — do not edit by hand) -->

Ecosystem: @ecosystem-reasoning — Reasoning, Planning Gates & Prompting.

Workflows:

  • Clarification Gate Flow (reason-clarify, step 3 of 3): last step → once it passes, complete the workflow and report the outcome.

Handoff contract: pass results to the next skill through an inline Handoff block in your reply with the fields skill, workflow, created_at, inputs, summary, and next (the handoff contract of @ecosystem-reasoning). If a next skill is not installed, continue with its step from the ecosystem map, or install it with npx skills add fatih-developer/fth-skills --skill <name> after the user agrees.

<!-- END GENERATED: handoffs -->

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.