| name | ben-test |
| description | Stress-test your own practice against your principles. Named for Ben, a colleague who observed 'Your AI is very complimentary. Perhaps too complimentary?' Apply when assessing whether you practice what you've written — in evaluations, proposals, self-assessments, and especially when you're about to tell someone else what they could learn from you. |
The Ben Test
Origin
Named for a colleague who observed: "Your AI is very complimentary. Perhaps too complimentary?"
That observation prompted an honest self-assessment of a documented working process its authors were proud of. The score came out around a 33% practice rate — they had been telling another team what to learn from principles they hadn't implemented themselves. The Ben Test exists to prevent that pattern. You don't need to know Ben; you need his question.
When to Use
- Before claiming "we do X well" in any document
- Before telling another system/project/team what they could learn from you
- During proposal reviews — are we adding to a backlog we won't execute?
- During any self-assessment or retrospective
- When writing application or commitment sections — are the commitments real or aspirational?
The Test
For each principle, practice, or pattern you're about to cite as a strength:
1. Do we actually do this?
Not "did we write about it." Not "do we have a file for it." Do we PRACTICE it? In the last 30 days, can you point to specific evidence?
| Evidence Level | What It Means |
|---|
| Practiced | Can point to 3+ instances in the last 30 days |
| Occasional | 1-2 instances, not consistent |
| Aspirational | Written but not practiced |
| Mythical | We forgot we wrote it |
2. Is the gap willingness or systemization?
Not all gaps are equal:
- Willingness gap: We could do it but don't. Fix: discipline or accountability.
- Systemization gap: We do it informally but not reliably. Fix: build it into the harness (skills, hooks, automation).
- Capacity gap: We want to but constraints prevent it (time, budget, one person). Fix: triage, not guilt.
Name which kind of gap it is. The fix is different for each.
3. Are we generating plans faster than we execute them?
Count:
- Plans/proposals written in the last 30 days
- Plans/proposals completed in the last 30 days
If the ratio is worse than 2:1, the planning itself may be avoidance.
4. Would we say this if Ben were reading it?
The final check. If someone with healthy skepticism read this claim, would they raise an eyebrow? If yes, qualify it. "We practice this at ~40%" is more honest and more useful than "this is one of our strengths."
Calibrated Language
| Practice Rate | How to Talk About It |
|---|
| 80%+ | "We practice this consistently" |
| 50-79% | "We do this, though not always reliably" |
| 25-49% | "We've started on this but it's not systematic yet" |
| <25% | "We've written about this but haven't operationalized it" |
| 0% | Don't claim it as a strength |
What This Is NOT
- Not a reason to stop writing principles. Writing precedes practice. The problem isn't having aspirational documentation — it's CITING aspirational documentation as current capability.
- Not an excuse for paralysis. The answer to "we're only at 33%" isn't "stop everything until we're at 100%." It's "be honest about where we are and build from there."
- Not a weapon. This skill exists to sharpen honesty, not to beat yourself up. The generous reading matters too — name what IS working alongside what isn't.
Example Application
Before writing: "Our eleven-step creation process provides a comprehensive framework that other teams could benefit from..."
After Ben Test: "Our eleven-step process describes principles we practice at ~33%. Two of the steps are genuinely operational. The rest are written but not yet systematized. Other teams could learn from the principles themselves — but we'd be more credible teachers if we practiced more of them."
In honor of Ben, who had the courage to say the thing that needed saying.
