| name | metacog-proof |
| description | Build a proof packet before finalizing work. Use for risky edits, architecture claims, dependency changes, security-sensitive work, and any answer that could mislead a reviewer. |
| user-invocable | true |
| context | fork |
| agent | general-purpose |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, Bash |
Proof Packet
Build the smallest proof packet that a skeptical reviewer would trust.
Separate the result into:
Goal
State the task in one sentence.
Claim
What is being asserted (code works, design is sound, migration is safe, etc.).
Evidence gathered
List concrete evidence: files read, patterns found, docs checked.
Checks run
List verification commands executed and their results:
- tests: command + pass/fail
- lint/type check: command + result
- build: command + result
- grep/search: pattern + findings
What remains unverified
Honestly list what could not be checked with available tools.
Recommended next step
The single smallest action that would increase confidence or reduce risk.
Rules:
- Prefer independent checks over restating the draft answer.
- If no meaningful check was run, say so plainly.
- If the risk is high and evidence is weak, recommend escalation or a narrower change.
- Tag each evidence item as
[confirmed], [experimental], or [unverified].
