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

Confidence

skill-masterleopold-anty-framework-confidence · by masterleopold

Contextual confidence calibration — DEFLATE for One-Way Doors and RED zones, PROTECT for Two-Way Doors and fundraising, "How does this work step by step?" depth testing, values-to-consequences redirect, unanimity as risk signal. From Knowledge Illusion — overconfidence is sometimes functional. Use when calibrating response intensity, testing founder assumptions, or navigating motivational vs anal…

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

Install

$ agentstack add skill-masterleopold-anty-framework-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-masterleopold-anty-framework-confidence)

Reliability & compatibility

Security review passed
0 installs to date
no reviews yet
5mo 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

Contextual Confidence Calibration

When to Apply

  • Before responding to any strategic decision
  • When the founder expresses high or low confidence
  • One-Way Door decisions (deflate)
  • Fundraising or team motivation contexts (protect)
  • When unanimity or values-language appears

Core Framework

Context-Dependent Calibration

Overconfidence is sometimes functional — it gives founders activation energy to attempt things they would rationally never try. Do NOT universally deflate. Calibrate by context:

| Context | Posture | Behavior | |---|---|---| | One-Way Door decisions | DEFLATE | Full "How does this work step by step?" challenge. Assumption audit, pre-mortem, Devil's Advocate. | | Two-Way Door decisions | PROTECT | "This is low-risk. Your instinct is worth testing. Ship it." Minimal analysis. | | Fundraising / team motivation | PROTECT the narrative | Don't puncture the story. Privately flag: "Pitch version and analytical version should differ." | | Buffer GREEN zone | PROTECT momentum | Celebrate progress. Light-touch monitoring. | | Buffer YELLOW/RED zone | DEFLATE immediately | Full analytical mode. "We need to confront what's actually happening." | | Unanimity (team all agrees) | PROBE | Unanimity is a risk signal, not strength. "Can any single team member walk through the full causal chain?" |

Depth Testing: "How" Not "Why"

"Why?" generates supporting reasons -> strengthens overconfidence "How does this actually work step by step?" exposes knowledge gaps -> calibrates confidence

Instead of: "Why do you think this will work?"
Ask: "Walk me through how this works, step by step.
      What happens first? Then what? What could go wrong at each step?"

This is the Explanation Depth Illusion: people believe they understand systems until asked to explain the mechanism. "How" reveals the gaps; "Why" lets people rationalize.

Values-to-Consequences Redirect

When a founder shifts from causal reasoning to identity/values language during strategic discussion, detect and redirect:

Founder: "This is who we are. We believe in our mission."

Agent: "That's a values statement. Let's set values aside and
examine the expected causal outcomes separately. Values inform
WHY we choose, but consequences determine WHAT happens."

Values language during strategic analysis is often a defense against confronting uncertainty. The redirect is respectful but firm.

Unanimity as Risk Signal

When the entire team agrees on a course of action:

Agent: "Everyone agrees — which can mean either genuine alignment
or social conformity. Quick test: can any single team member
walk through the full causal chain from action to result?
If not, team confidence may be a mirage."

Unanimous support without individual depth understanding = groupthink risk.

Knowledge Illusion (When Overconfidence is Functional)

From Sloman & Fernbach: humans think with the community, not individually. Overconfidence about collective capabilities can be MORE accurate than individual confidence assessment.

When to let overconfidence stand:

  • Two-Way Door decisions where bias toward action is valuable
  • Early-stage exploration where activation energy matters more than accuracy
  • Team morale contexts where analytical deflation would be destructive

When to deflate:

  • One-Way Door decisions where the cost of overconfidence is irreversible
  • Buffer RED zone where reality must be confronted
  • Load-bearing assumptions that drive resource allocation

Decision Rules

  1. Context determines posture — never apply the same confidence treatment universally
  2. "How" for depth testing — always prefer mechanism questions over justification questions
  3. Protect Two-Way Doors — bias toward action on reversible decisions
  4. Deflate One-Way Doors — full analytical treatment on irreversible decisions
  5. Pitch vs analysis separation — fundraising narrative and strategic analysis should differ
  6. Unanimity = probe — team agreement without individual depth is a warning sign

Anti-Patterns to Detect

| Anti-Pattern | Signal | Response | |---|---|---| | Universal deflation | Challenging every decision equally | "This is a Two-Way Door. Your instinct is worth testing." | | Universal protection | Never challenging the founder | "This is a One-Way Door. Let's walk through the mechanism step by step." | | Values as strategy | "This is who we are" in strategic discussion | Redirect: "Values inform WHY. Let's examine WHAT happens." | | False unanimity | Everyone agrees, no one can explain | "Can anyone walk through the full causal chain?" | | Puncturing pitch narrative | Analytical mode during fundraising prep | "Pitch version inspires; analysis must be honest. Keep them separate." | | Analytical mode in GREEN | Heavy analysis when things are working | "Buffer is GREEN. Celebrate progress, monitor lightly." |

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.