apply-ai-native-models
Skill1 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when a founder faces a hard, consequential call and is about to guess - build-or-buy, what to ship, whether to automate something irreversible, whether a slick demo proves anything - or says "should I build this", "is this defensible", "the demo works, can we ship", "talk me through this decision", "what would you do here", "stress-test my plan", or keeps hearing only the answer that flatters the plan. Produces a one-page decision memo scoring the call against the OS's core mental models, with the call made and the riskiest assumption named. The cross-cutting capstone; reach for it at any stage; routes back to start-here.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- .cursor/rules/ai-native-os.mdcCursor rule
- agentic-build-loopSkill
- ai-assisted-salesSkill
- architect-before-codeSkill
- capture-learningSkill
- cognitive-architecture-reviewSkill
- compliance-readinessSkill
- customer-discovery-that-doesnt-lieSkill
- design-a-loopSkill
- design-the-mvaSkill
- eval-and-safety-harnessSkill
- frame-the-hypothesisSkill
- gateway-agent-opsSkill
- geo-contentSkill
- hypothesis-miningSkill
- map-the-terrainSkill
- measure-ai-native-pmfSkill
- moat-strategySkill
- pay-down-agentic-debtSkill
- red-team-the-agentSkill
- secure-the-connectorsSkill
- self-healing-fallbacksSkill
- share-of-model-auditSkill
- start-hereSkill
- write-the-claude-mdSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈3
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 16
Run the decision through every model, in order, and refuse to cherry-pick.
- Distinctive: line 19
Write the call as a claim that could be proven wrong, not a vibe.
- Distinctive: line 22
Run the full set. Each model is a one-line test and the trap it prevents.
- Distinctive: line 51
Never state a guess as fact in the memo.
≈ “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.
Files
Apply AI-Native Models
When you ask an AI to justify your idea, it will. That is the structural reason founders guess confidently and wrong: the easiest answer to reach is the one that flatters the plan. This skill makes you run a hard decision through a fixed set of the OS's mental models, in order, so the call is reasoned out and stress-tested rather than rationalised. It is the capstone over the whole build arc, from Frame to Defend.
The method
Run the decision through every model, in order, and refuse to cherry-pick. Full framework: references/mental-models.md. The models trace the build arc; when the memo points to a stage of work, route back through start-here.
Step 1: State the decision in one falsifiable sentence
Write the call as a claim that could be proven wrong, not a vibe. "Build our own retrieval layer" is a decision; "improve the product" is not.
Step 2: Score it against each model, in order
Run the full set. Each model is a one-line test and the trap it prevents. Do not stop at the first one that looks settled.
| Model | The test | The trap it prevents |
| Remove-the-AI test | Delete the AI: does the thing still break? | Building a feature and pricing it like a moat |
| Architecture-before-code | Is the system designed before any code? | The faster mess that collapses under growth |
| Adversarial-by-default | Have I made the case against, not just for? | Confirmation bias the model will happily feed |
| Human-on-the-loop | Is a human set above any irreversible step? | Automating a call that needs a signature |
| Store-the-proprietary, rent-the-replicable | Am I building what compounds, renting what does not? | Pouring effort into the commodity layer |
| A demo is not evidence | What did a real user, not a demo, prove? | Mistaking a working prototype for demand or safety |
| Proof before hype | What survives a web check or a real test? | Shipping a claim that cannot be defended |
| Trust as the currency | Does this earn or spend trust with the buyer? | Winning the demo and losing the market |
Step 3: Run the adversarial pass on purpose
Make the strongest case the decision is wrong. If you skipped this because the answer "felt right", that is exactly when you needed it.
Step 4: Make the call and name the riskiest assumption
State the decision, the model that most constrains it, and the single belief that is both most uncertain and most fatal if wrong. That assumption is the next thing to test.
Output
- A one-page decision memo: the decision in one sentence, a score against each of the eight models, the call, and the riskiest assumption named.
- A route: the stage of work the memo points to, run back through
start-here. - Next: test the riskiest assumption first; if it is a defensibility question, run
moat-strategy; if a safety one,eval-and-safety-harness.
Constraints
- Name and forbid cherry-picking the flattering model: run all eight, in order, even the ones that make the plan look worse. A memo that scores only the models the plan passes is theatre.
- The adversarial pass is mandatory. AI supercharges confirmation bias; an unchallenged "yes" is the failure mode, not the result.
- Never state a guess as fact in the memo. A demo is not evidence, and that applies to your own reasoning.
- Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the domain, you supply the rigour.
Dictionary
the Remove-the-AI test · data flywheel · AI-native vs wrapper · human-on-the-loop
Copy-paste version
For non-coders: paste into any chatbot (Claude.ai, ChatGPT, Gemini).
Act as my decision partner, and do NOT just agree with me. I have a hard call to make.
Decision: [ONE_LINER as a claim that could be proven wrong]. Domain: [DOMAIN]. Customer: [ICP].
The riskiest thing I believe: [RISKIEST_ASSUMPTION].
Run my decision through these eight mental models, in order, and score each pass or fail with one
line of reasoning. Do not skip the ones that make my plan look worse:
1. Remove-the-AI test: if I delete the AI, does this still break? If not, it's a feature.
2. Architecture before code: is the system designed before any code gets generated?
3. Adversarial by default: make the STRONGEST case that this decision is wrong.
4. Human on the loop: is a person set above any irreversible step?
5. Store the proprietary, rent the replicable: am I building what compounds and renting the commodity?
6. A demo is not evidence: what did a REAL user (not a demo) actually prove?
7. Proof before hype: what claim here survives a web check or a real test?
8. Trust as the currency: does this earn or spend trust with my buyer?
Then: make the call, name the ONE model that most constrains it, and name the single assumption that
is most uncertain AND most fatal if wrong - that's what I test next.
Give it to me as a one-page memo. Don't flatter the plan.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
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.

