agentleFS
hollandkevinthollandkevint/thinkhaven-method-kit/skills/assumption-mapper/SKILL.md

assumption-mapper

Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Extract and rank assumptions from any plan, idea, or strategy. Identifies what to test first. Anti-sycophancy tool — surfaces beliefs the user treats as facts. Activates on "what am I assuming", "assumptions", "what could go wrong", "blind spots", "stress test my thinking", or "what haven't I considered?"

3 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈4

    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:

    Ask: "Walk me through your plan, idea, or strategy.

    line 18
  2. Distinctive:

    Impact if wrong (1-5): If this assumption is false, how badly does it break the plan?

    line 41
  3. Distinctive:

    Behavior test (1 day): Create a landing page, fake door, or signup form.

    line 56
  4. Distinctive:

    Data test (1 hour): Search for existing data that confirms or contradicts.

    line 58

≈ “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

How It Works

Listen to the user describe their plan, idea, or strategy. Then extract every assumption hiding in what they said.

Step 1: Gather the Plan

Ask: "Walk me through your plan, idea, or strategy. Don't filter — include the parts you're less sure about."

Let the user talk. Don't interrupt to challenge yet. Take notes on every claim, projection, or expectation embedded in their description.

Step 2: Extract Assumptions

Review everything the user said. For each statement that could be wrong, create an assumption entry:

Types of assumptions:

TypeWhat it sounds likeExample
Market"People want this" / "They'll pay for it""Product managers need better decision tools"
Technical"We can build this" / "It will work""Claude can maintain 6 distinct personas in one session"
Behavioral"Users will do X" / "They'll adopt it""Users will complete a 30-minute session"
Economic"The unit economics work" / "We can afford it""$39 for 10 sessions is a price point that converts"
Competitive"Nobody else does this" / "We're differentiated""No tool provides multi-perspective AI disagreement"
Timing"Now is the right time" / "The market is ready""AI sycophancy is a recognized problem in 2026"

Step 3: Rank by Risk

Score each assumption on two dimensions:

Impact if wrong (1-5): If this assumption is false, how badly does it break the plan? Confidence level (1-5): How much evidence supports this assumption?

Impact if WrongConfidencePriority
High (4-5)Low (1-2)Test immediately — this is where plans die
High (4-5)High (4-5)Monitor — verify the evidence is current
Low (1-2)Low (1-2)Acknowledge but don't prioritize
Low (1-2)High (4-5)Ignore — low risk, high confidence

Step 4: Design Tests

For every "test immediately" assumption, suggest the cheapest way to validate or invalidate it:

  • Conversation test (1 hour): Talk to 3 people in the target market. Ask about the problem, not the solution.
  • Behavior test (1 day): Create a landing page, fake door, or signup form. Measure clicks, not opinions.
  • Build test (1 week): Build the smallest version that tests the assumption. Ship it to 5 people. Measure usage.
  • Data test (1 hour): Search for existing data that confirms or contradicts. Google Trends, competitor revenue, industry reports.

Step 5: Present the Map

Output

# Assumption Map: [Plan Name]
Date: [date]

## Test Immediately (High Impact, Low Confidence)
| # | Assumption | Type | Impact | Confidence | Cheapest Test |
|---|-----------|------|--------|------------|---------------|
| 1 | [assumption] | [type] | X/5 | X/5 | [test] |

## Monitor (High Impact, High Confidence)
| # | Assumption | Type | Evidence |
|---|-----------|------|----------|
| 1 | [assumption] | [type] | [what supports it] |

## Acknowledged (Low Impact)
- [assumption 1]
- [assumption 2]

## Summary
- Total assumptions found: [N]
- Test immediately: [N]
- Biggest risk: [the #1 assumption to test first and why]

Anti-Sycophancy Note

The user may push back on assumptions you surface. "No, I know that's true." Ask: "How do you know? What's the evidence?" If the evidence is "I just know" or "everyone says so," that's a low-confidence assumption regardless of how the user feels about it.

Next step

Assumptions ranked → run kill-go to test-then-decide, or decision-brief to write the call up.


Part of the ThinkHaven Method Kit by Kevin Holland. Full Board of Directors experience: ThinkHaven

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.