super-truth

Verifies AI engineering output claims via adversarial sub-agents producing structured verdicts with confidence scores.

Updated May 20, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/samuelcastro/skills --skill super-truth
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: super-truth
Source: https://github.com/samuelcastro/skills/tree/main/super-truth
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/samuelcastro/skills --skill super-truth

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

It prevents optimistic but unverified AI results from being treated as true by adding an adversarial check that asks whether the claimed outcome actually holds in reality.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Adversarial verification gate: Runs multiple sub-agents to try to disprove producer claims and identify concrete counterexamples.
  • Multi-input validation: Supports claims originating from code review findings, fix commits, QA/spec artifacts, visual-diff verdicts, and feature-implementation reports.
  • Confidence-based publish/halt decision: Returns a 0–100 confidence score plus a gate decision (publish, halt, or escalate-to-human) driven by agent agreement and contradictions.
  • Evidence-oriented verdicts: Produces structured verdict YAML with counterexamples and logs suitable for downstream orchestration.

Quick Start

Ask your agent to run the command: /super-truth verify <input> using the producer artifact you want grounded in reality (such as a commit SHA, review comment URL, test spec path, or visual-diff log).

Frequently Asked Questions about super-truth

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

FAQPage Schema
How do I verify AI code review findings and fix commits against actual repository behavior?

You can verify AI code review findings by running an adversarial verification gate that spawns multiple sub-agents to reproduce or refute the claimed outcomes, returning a structured verdict with counterexamples and a confidence score.

What is adversarial verification for autonomous AI engineering loops?

Adversarial verification is a mechanism that attempts to disprove AI-produced engineering workflow outputs by checking whether claimed results correspond to real, user-visible outcomes rather than accepting optimistic assertions at face value.

How do I validate visual diff verdicts and QA spec results generated by AI?

You validate visual diff verdicts and QA spec results by passing the producer artifacts to parallel adversarial sub-agents, which attempt to identify concrete counterexamples and output a publish, halt, or escalate-to-human gate decision.

Can I use confidence gating to automatically publish or halt AI feature implementation reports?

Yes, confidence gating evaluates feature-implementation completion reports by measuring sub-agent agreement and contradictions, producing a 0–100 confidence score that drives an automated publish, halt, or escalate-to-human decision.

What types of AI workflow outputs can be checked with mutation testing and adversarial sub-agents?

This approach supports claims originating from code review findings, fix commits, QA spec artifacts, visual-diff verdicts, and feature-implementation reports, grounding them in reality by attempting to reproduce the underlying claims.

When should I not use adversarial verification for AI-generated engineering artifacts?

You should avoid using adversarial verification when you lack producer artifacts like commit SHAs or test spec paths, as the process requires spawning parallel sub-agents to actively attempt to refute specific claims with concrete counterexamples.