skeptic

Validate AI outputs with cognitive frameworks and evidence checks.

Updated Apr 26, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/EndUser123/cc-marketplace --skill skeptic-enduser123
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: skeptic
Source: https://github.com/EndUser123/cc-marketplace/tree/main/plugins/cc-skills-meta/skills/skeptic
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/EndUser123/cc-marketplace --skill skeptic-enduser123

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

AI-generated plans, diffs, and analyses frequently risk gaps, overreach, or hallucinations. This Skill provides a skeptical, framework-based review that emphasizes evidence, coverage, and safe conclusions.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Framework-driven critique using Cynefin, Inversion, Chesterton's Fence, and Devil's Advocate to surface blind spots.
  • Evidence-focused evaluation that highlights missing data, untested edge cases, and unsupported claims.
  • Structured findings with severity levels and concrete actions, linked to risk and governance workflows.
  • Interoperates with other safety and validation skills (e.g., guard/ship) for end-to-end risk management.

Quick Start

Provide a skeptic report for the given AI-generated artifact.

Frequently Asked Questions about skeptic

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I validate AI-generated plans for hallucinations and unsupported claims?

AI output validation uses cognitive frameworks like Cynefin, Inversion, and Chesterton's Fence to review large plans and diffs. This framework-based analysis identifies gaps, hallucinations, and overreach by checking evidence coverage, surfacing blind spots, and producing structured findings with severity levels and recommended mitigations.

How do I review AI diffs and tool outputs to identify gaps and overreach?

Reviewing AI diffs and tool outputs involves applying evidence-focused evaluation to highlight missing data and untested edge cases. The process yields structured findings with severity levels and concrete actions, linking identified gaps and overreach directly to risk and governance workflows for mitigation.

What is the best way to apply cognitive frameworks for AI output validation?

The best way to validate AI outputs is applying framework-driven critique using Cynefin, Inversion, Chesterton's Fence, and Devil's Advocate. This skeptical review emphasizes evidence and coverage, surfacing blind spots in AI-generated plans and producing actionable findings with severity levels to ensure safe conclusions.

Does this AI validation skill work with other safety and guard skills?

This AI validation skill interoperates with other safety and validation skills, such as guard and ship, for end-to-end risk management. It provides framework-based analysis and structured findings with severity levels that link directly into downstream risk and governance workflows.

When do I need framework-based analysis to evaluate AI-generated artifacts?

You need framework-based analysis when AI-generated plans, diffs, and analyses risk gaps, overreach, or hallucinations. Applying evidence-focused evaluation highlights missing data and untested edge cases, providing a skeptical review that emphasizes evidence, coverage, and safe conclusions with actionable mitigations.