assumption-audit
Skill0 starsChanged 5 months agoMITView on GitHub
Excavates the hidden assumptions baked into a plan, belief, or estimate, lists them explicitly, then ranks them by how much damage results if each turns out to be wrong — so the riskiest get tested first. Use this skill when the user asks "what am I assuming", "audit my assumptions", "what am I taking for granted", has a shaky estimate or forecast, is building a plan that depends on unknowns, wants to de-risk before committing resources, or when a plan feels confident but rests on untested beliefs. Best when a plan looks solid on the surface but its foundations have never been checked.
4 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- Walsworth-Group/physkittheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- kalshamsi/fable-discipline-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
- hraness/personal-monorepo-templatetheir own version, first seen Sep 28, 2026
- Natan-Mohart/24-strategy-skills-for-claudetheir own version, first seen Aug 8, 2026
Other versions4 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 4
- Natan-Mohart/24-strategy-skills-for-claude★ 41same name
- Walsworth-Group/physkit★ 7same name
- hraness/personal-monorepo-template★ 4same name
- kalshamsi/fable-discipline-skills★ 0same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- cite-checkSkill
- compactSkill
- confidence-tagSkill
- context-budgetSkill
- devils-advocateSkill
- distillSkill
- first-principlesSkill
- handoffSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- red-teamSkill
- rubber-duckSkill
- scope-cutterSkill
- scratchpadSkill
- self-consistencySkill
- steelmanSkill
- teach-backSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 11
Before committing significant time, money, or reputation to a plan.
- Distinctive: line 19
When the assumptions are cheap to be wrong about and trivially reversible.
- Distinctive: line 35
Decide per assumption: test it now, build a fallback for it, or knowingly accept the risk.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Assumption Audit
Surface the things a plan quietly takes for granted, write them down where everyone can see them, and rank them by blast radius — then go test the dangerous ones before reality does.
When to use
- Before committing significant time, money, or reputation to a plan.
- An estimate or forecast feels confident but you can't say why.
- A plan depends on things outside your control (a partner, a market, a tool, a user behavior).
- A post-mortem found a failure that "no one saw coming" — it was an unexamined assumption.
- The user wants a prioritized de-risking list, not a vague "it might not work."
When NOT to use
- Pure execution of an already-validated plan where assumptions were checked recently.
- When the assumptions are cheap to be wrong about and trivially reversible.
- Analysis-paralysis situations where the user needs to act, not enumerate more risks.
The method
- Restate the plan/belief/estimate plainly. Get the claim in one or two sentences so the assumptions have something to hang off.
- Hunt assumptions in every category. Go category by category so you don't miss whole classes:
- Factual — "X is true" (data, market size, a number you didn't measure).
- Behavioral — "people/users/the team will do Y."
- Causal — "if we do A, B will follow."
- Resource — "we'll have the time/money/skill/access."
- Stability — "the world won't change underneath us" (prices, rules, dependencies).
- Definitional — "we all mean the same thing by this word/goal."
- Make the implicit explicit. Rewrite each as a flat declarative sentence: "We are assuming that ___." If you can't say it cleanly, you don't understand it yet.
- Find the load-bearing ones. Mark which assumptions the whole plan depends on — remove the assumption and the plan collapses. These are structural; the rest are cosmetic.
- Score each on two axes: Impact if wrong (cosmetic → fatal) and Confidence it's true (proven → pure guess). The danger zone is high impact + low confidence.
- Rank by risk and sort the action. Order by impact-if-wrong × uncertainty. For the top ones, define the cheapest possible test that would prove or kill the assumption (an experiment, a phone call, a small spend, a lookup).
- Decide per assumption: test it now, build a fallback for it, or knowingly accept the risk. The goal is that no fatal assumption is left both untested and unacknowledged.
What good looks like
- A clean list of explicit "We are assuming that ___" statements.
- The 2-3 load-bearing, low-confidence assumptions clearly flagged as the real risk.
- Each top assumption paired with a cheap, concrete test — not "we should validate this" but "call three customers and ask X."
- Confidence levels stated honestly, including admitting "this is a guess."
- The user knows exactly what to verify first thing tomorrow.
Anti-patterns
- Listing only the comfortable assumptions you already know are true — the dangerous ones are the ones you don't want to look at.
- Flat lists with no ranking — 20 unranked assumptions is noise.
- Stopping at naming without proposing a test or fallback.
- Fake confidence: scoring a wild guess as "high confidence" because admitting uncertainty is uncomfortable.
- Auditing trivia while skipping the one belief the whole plan rests on.
Example
Plan: "We'll hit Q4 revenue by converting 5% of free users to paid after launching the new tier." Audit surfaces: (Behavioral) we assume free users want a paid tier at all — confidence: low, impact: fatal → load-bearing. (Factual) we assume the 5% conversion rate — based on a blog post, not our data — confidence: low, impact: high. (Resource) we assume the tier ships by October — confidence: medium. (Stability) we assume no competitor launches a free equivalent — confidence: low, impact: high. Ranked, the danger zone is "free users want to pay" + "5% rate." Cheapest tests: put a fake "Upgrade" button in the app and measure click-through this week (tests willingness for ~$0), and pull conversion benchmarks from a comparable product instead of trusting the blog. Everything else can wait or get a fallback.
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.

