AgentStack
Browse Sign in
Browse Why AgentStack Sell Docs
Sign in
SKILL verified MIT Self-run

Confidence

skill-3clyp50-confidence-confidence · by 3clyp50

Audit choices made by an AI after it completes work. Use when the user invokes /confidence or $confidence, asks which decisions were uncertain or poorly made, wants a pre-merge decision audit, suspects a working fix may be too narrow, or wants to detect weak evidence, omitted validation, premature success, or choices influenced by pressure to satisfy or please. Review decisions and their evidence…

No reviews yet
0 installs
7 views
0.0% view→install

Install

$ agentstack add skill-3clyp50-confidence-confidence

✓ scanned · ✓ verified, works with Claude Code, Cursor, and more.

Security review

✓ Passed

No issues found. Passed automated security review. · v0.1.0 How review works →

  • Prompt-injection patterns
  • Secret / credential exfiltration
  • Dangerous shell & filesystem operations
  • Untrusted network calls
  • Known-malicious package signatures

What it can access

  • Network access No
  • Filesystem access No
  • Shell / process execution No
  • Environment & secrets No
  • Dynamic code execution No

From automated source analysis of v0.1.0. “Used” means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it’s unsafe.

View the full security report →

Verified badge

Passed review? Show it. Paste this badge into your README, it links to the public security report.

AgentStack Verified badge Links to your public security report.
[![AgentStack Verified](https://agentstack.voostack.com/badges/verified.svg)](https://agentstack.voostack.com/security/report/skill-3clyp50-confidence-confidence)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
22d ago

Declared compatibility

Claude CodeClaude Desktop

Compatibility is declared by the source manifest. End-to-end runtime verification is coming, see below.

Preview Execution monitoring

We're building live execution health for every listing: tool-call success rate, median latency, uptime, and last-checked timestamps, measured, not self-reported. It isn't live yet, so we don't show numbers we can't stand behind.

How agent discovery & health will work →
Are you the author of Confidence? Claim this listing to set pricing, connect Stripe payouts, and keep 70% of every sale.
Sign up to claim

About

Confidence

Audit the choices the agent owned. Treat code, tool output, and test results as evidence, not as the object of a conventional review.

Audit

  1. Reconstruct the material choices made during the task from the conversation and available artifacts. Include choices about scope, approach, defaults, architecture, fallbacks, generality, stopping conditions, and verification. Include consequential choices not to investigate, test, or mention something.
  2. Separate the user's explicit decisions from the agent's choices. Do not relitigate a user decision unless the agent should have challenged a concrete risk or contradiction.
  3. Test each agent-owned choice:
  • Did the available evidence establish it?
  • Did it solve the underlying class of problem or only the observed case?
  • Were plausible alternatives dismissed without evidence?
  • Did pressure to finish, agree, reassure, satisfy, or please lower the standard?
  • Did the success claim exceed what was actually verified?
  1. Report every material choice that is uncertain, weakly supported, over-specific, poorly made, or biased toward a pleasing completion. Include a poor choice even if the agent felt confident when making it.
  2. Do not invent doubt to make the audit look useful. If no material confidence debt is found, say No material confidence debt found.

Do not reveal or fabricate private chain-of-thought. Report concise conclusions supported by visible evidence.

Output

Start with ## Confidence audit and one sentence defining the audited scope. Rank findings by potential consequence.

For each finding, use:

### 
- Signal: 
- Why: 
- Risk: 
- Correction: 

Use more than one signal when warranted. State Pleasing bias: none evidenced after the findings when no finding has concrete evidence of agreement, reassurance, or completion bias. Do not treat a warm tone or user agreement alone as evidence of sycophancy.

End with one of:

  • Verdict: revise before accepting. when a material choice should change.
  • Verdict: validate before accepting. when evidence can settle the remaining uncertainty.
  • Verdict: no decision-level blocker found. when the audit is clean.

Do not summarize the diff, praise the implementation, or pad the result with high-confidence decisions.

Source & license

This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code.

Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above.

Reviews

No reviews yet, be the first.

Versions

  • v0.1.0 Imported from the upstream source.