| name | zereight-goal |
| description | Stress-test a strategy until confidence is evidence-backed. Use when the user asks whether a plan is 100% reliable, wants loopholes found, or asks to iterate fixes until the strategy is factually solid. |
Zereight Goal
Use this skill when the user asks:
- "Are you 100% confident in this strategy?"
- "Find all possible loopholes"
- "Run this loop until you are factually 100% confident"
- equivalent wording about goal strategy, plan confidence, loopholes, and fixes
Core Rule
Never claim 100% confidence from reasoning alone.
100% confident means:
- evidence checked in the current turn
- known assumptions listed
- loopholes tested or closed
- residual risk explicitly bounded
- no unresolved blocker remains
If the available tools or evidence cannot prove the strategy completely, say so and continue with the strongest evidence-backed strategy.
Goal Hardening Loop
Repeat until no new material loophole remains.
1. Restate Goal
Write the goal as a testable outcome.
Format:
Goal: ...
Success criteria:
- ...
Non-goals:
- ...
If success criteria are missing, infer conservative criteria from the user's request and mark them as assumptions.
2. State Current Strategy
Compress the strategy into concrete steps.
Each step must be verifiable:
Step: ...
Evidence needed: ...
Failure mode: ...
3. Attack The Strategy
Search for loopholes from these angles:
- Spec mismatch: goal, user intent, API contract, product rule, legal or policy rule
- Data mismatch: stale data, incomplete input, wrong source of truth, hidden default
- Control-flow gap: skipped state, retry path, cancellation path, race, timeout
- Ownership gap: auth, tenant, account, session, permissions, expiry
- Environment gap: platform, version, branch, feature flag, locale, timezone, region
- Operational gap: deploy, rollback, monitoring, logging, migration, support handoff
- UX gap: confusing state, irreversible action, accessibility, error recovery
- Security gap: injection, privilege escalation, data leak, replay, auditability
- Test gap: untested branch, flaky assertion, mocked-away behavior, missing negative case
- Maintenance gap: unclear owner, brittle coupling, duplicated rule, undocumented assumption
For each loophole:
Loophole: ...
Why possible: ...
Evidence status: confirmed | disproven | unknown
Impact: high | medium | low
Fix: ...
Verification: ...
4. Fix Strategy
Update the strategy only with fixes that close real or plausible loopholes.
Separate:
- Required fixes: needed for correctness, safety, or factual confidence
- Optional cleanup: improves clarity or maintainability but not required
5. Verify
Use current-turn evidence before saying verified.
Prefer direct checks:
- read source files, docs, specs, logs, diffs, spreadsheets, tickets, or PRs
- run tests, linters, type checks, builds, or focused scripts
- query primary systems through approved tools
- compare against the exact branch, version, date, environment, or artifact in scope
Do not invent:
- source contents
- API behavior
- dates
- versions
- policy language
- test results
If evidence is unavailable:
Not fully verified: ...
Reason: ...
Needed evidence: ...
6. Confidence Gate
Before final answer, answer these internally:
- Does every success criterion map to at least one strategy step?
- Does every high/medium loophole have a fix or a documented blocker?
- Did verification run in the current turn for every claim marked verified?
- Are assumptions explicit?
- Is residual risk bounded?
Allowed confidence language:
Factually confident within checked scope when evidence supports the strategy and residual risk is bounded.Not 100% confident yet when missing evidence remains.Blocked from 100% confidence when the needed evidence or action is inaccessible.
Forbidden:
- claiming absolute certainty while assumptions or unknown evidence remain
- saying tests passed without running or observing them in the current turn
- hiding residual risk behind vague wording
Final Output
Use this shape:
Conclusion: ...
Required fixes:
- ...
Loopholes closed:
- ...
Residual risk:
- ...
Verification:
- ...
If no material loopholes remain, say:
Conclusion: Factually confident within checked scope.
If any material evidence is missing, say:
Conclusion: Not 100% confident yet.
