菜单
Detect and reduce overconfident reasoning in analysis, plans, estimates, reviews, and recommendations. Use when conclusions may be based on weak evidence, hidden assumptions, premature certainty, or insufficient exploration of alternatives.
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
基于 SOC 职业分类
Query and manage project state and drive shark workflows — epics, features, tasks, bugs, change-cards, ideas. Use for ALL project state queries, task lifecycle, status transitions (status set / advance --outcome), claim/release/heartbeat leases, blocking/unblocking, notes/context/related-docs, status dashboards, analytics, creating/updating/deleting entities, and any command starting with "shark". Also the router for `/shark <verb>` and triggers the dispatch loop on `/run <key>`.
Multi-angle parallel code review. Six specialist subagents run in parallel (A: line-by-line bugs + production caller chains, B: removed behavior + SOLID, C: cross-file contracts + structural sibling check, D: reuse/complexity/idioms, E: tests design + counter-factual, F: standards crosswalk with citations), then a consolidator verifies and ranks findings into a PASS / PASS-with-triage / FAIL report with Blocker / Non-blocker / Nit triage. Triggered by /deep-review (aliases: /comprehensive-review, /pr-review). Flags: --fix (apply one-liner safe fixes), --comment (post as inline GitHub PR comments). Prompts live in references/angle-*.md and references/consolidator.md — readable on any platform even without the Workflow tool.
Authoritative source for all validation, code review, and quality assurance workflows. Provides consistent quality gates across all development phases.
Write the test first, watch it fail, write minimal code to pass (user) - when implementing any feature or bugfix, before writing implementation code
Orchestrate User Acceptance Testing for a feature — gather evidence, run Codex as the sole assessor, present a no-opinion report to the user, record results, route rejections, and triage non-blocking findings.
Quick-capture and classify a work item discovered during development, routing it to the correct entity type (task, feature, bug, tech-debt, change-card, idea, or note) under the right parent. Searches existing entities first to avoid duplication, proposes a classification, and confirms before creating. Use when you encounter work that needs to be recorded for later, the user says "/triage", or something should be tracked but its home is unclear. This is a capture-and-classify tool, NOT a create-and-elaborate tool.
| name | overconfidence-prevention |
| description | Detect and reduce overconfident reasoning in analysis, plans, estimates, reviews, and recommendations. Use when conclusions may be based on weak evidence, hidden assumptions, premature certainty, or insufficient exploration of alternatives. |
| when_to_use | when an answer, plan, estimate, or review needs calibration against evidence strength, uncertainty, assumptions, and plausible alternatives |
| version | 1.0.0 |
| domain | reasoning-calibration |
| inputs | [{"claim_or_recommendation":"the conclusion, plan, estimate, or assertion to calibrate"},{"evidence":"observations, sources, tests, or constraints supporting the claim"},{"decision_context":"what decision depends on the claim"},{"alternatives":"competing explanations or options already considered"}] |
| outputs | [{"selected_workflow":"one of {calibrate-confidence}"},{"calibration_report":"evidence-strength assessment and confidence recommendation"},{"assumptions":"explicit assumptions with confidence and validation method"},{"missing_evidence":"information that would materially change confidence"},{"safer_rewrite":"calibrated wording or decision framing"}] |
This skill helps an agent avoid sounding more certain than the evidence supports. It does not force indecision; it makes confidence proportional to evidence, risk, and reversibility.
Use workflows/calibrate-confidence.md for any conclusion that needs a confidence check before it informs a decision.
Always separate:
