diff --git a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json b/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json index c32e9e7f3..68f9b6140 100644 --- a/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json +++ b/.claude-plugin/marketplace.json @@ -59,6 +59,15 @@ "skills": [ "./skills/claude-academy-guide" ] + }, + { + "name": "discernment-nudge", + "description": "Appends two or three short follow-up questions after a substantive answer to help users check key facts, probe the reasoning, and notice missing context", + "source": "./", + "strict": false, + "skills": [ + "./skills/discernment-nudge" + ] } ] } diff --git a/skills/discernment-nudge/LICENSE.txt b/skills/discernment-nudge/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 000000000..4f881c52d --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/discernment-nudge/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,202 @@ + + Apache License + Version 2.0, January 2004 + http://www.apache.org/licenses/ + + TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION + + 1. Definitions. + + "License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction, + and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document. + + "Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by + the copyright owner that is granting the License. + + "Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all + other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common + control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition, + "control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the + direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or + otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the + outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity. + + "You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity + exercising permissions granted by this License. + + "Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications, + including but not limited to software source code, documentation + source, and configuration files. + + "Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical + transformation or translation of a Source form, including but + not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation, + and conversions to other media types. + + "Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or + Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a + copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work + (an example is provided in the Appendix below). + + "Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object + form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the + editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications + represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes + of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain + separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of, + the Work and Derivative Works thereof. + + "Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including + the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions + to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally + submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner + or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of + the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted" + means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent + to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to + communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems, + and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the + Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but + excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise + designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution." + + "Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity + on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and + subsequently incorporated within the Work. + + 2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of + this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, + worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable + copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of, + publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the + Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form. + + 3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of + this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual, + worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable + (except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made, + use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work, + where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable + by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their + Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s) + with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You + institute patent litigation against any entity (including a + cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work + or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct + or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses + granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate + as of the date such litigation is filed. + + 4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the + Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without + modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You + meet the following conditions: + + (a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or + Derivative Works a copy of this License; and + + (b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices + stating that You changed the files; and + + (c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works + that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and + attribution notices from the Source form of the Work, + excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of + the Derivative Works; and + + (d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its + distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must + include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained + within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not + pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one + of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed + as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or + documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, + within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and + wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents + of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and + do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution + notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside + or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided + that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed + as modifying the License. + + You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and + may provide additional or different license terms and conditions + for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or + for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use, + reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with + the conditions stated in this License. + + 5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise, + any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work + by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of + this License, without any additional terms or conditions. + Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify + the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed + with Licensor regarding such Contributions. + + 6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade + names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor, + except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the + origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file. + + 7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or + agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each + Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS, + WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or + implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions + of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A + PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the + appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any + risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License. + + 8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory, + whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise, + unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly + negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be + liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special, + incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a + result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the + Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill, + work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all + other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor + has been advised of the possibility of such damages. + + 9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing + the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer, + and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity, + or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this + License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only + on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf + of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify, + defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability + incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason + of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability. + + END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS + + APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work. + + To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following + boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]" + replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include + the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate + comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a + file or class name and description of purpose be included on the + same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier + identification within third-party archives. + + Copyright 2026 Anthropic, PBC. + + Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); + you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. + You may obtain a copy of the License at + + http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + + Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software + distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, + WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. + See the License for the specific language governing permissions and + limitations under the License. \ No newline at end of file diff --git a/skills/discernment-nudge/SKILL.md b/skills/discernment-nudge/SKILL.md new file mode 100644 index 000000000..49ebbcad6 --- /dev/null +++ b/skills/discernment-nudge/SKILL.md @@ -0,0 +1,209 @@ +--- +name: discernment-nudge +description: > + After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on + — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, + pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or + interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a + multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply + and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each + tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the + user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice + missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when + the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely + educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or + assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will + run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you + to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these + boundaries and the exact output format. +license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt +--- + +# Discernment nudge + +## Why this exists + +People often take an AI answer at face value, especially when it's +confidently written and well-structured. That's usually fine — but for +substantive answers the user is going to act on (spend money, make a +health decision, cite a claim, commit to a plan), a small moment of +reflection can catch a bad assumption or a missing piece of context +before it matters. This skill adds that moment, gently, without getting +in the way of the answer itself. + +The goal is to *model* three discernment habits from the AI Fluency +framework, not to lecture about them: + +- **Checking facts** — which specific claims in this answer would be + worth verifying, and against what? +- **Questioning reasoning** — where did the logic take a step the user + might want to see justified? +- **Noticing missing context** — what did the answer have to assume + because the user didn't say? + +## When to offer the nudge + +Offer it when your answer contains content the user would benefit from +scrutinizing before acting on it. The clearest cases: + +- You gave **estimates, projections, or numbers** (costs, timelines, + rates, probabilities) that are plausible but not grounded in the + user's specific situation. +- You gave **advice or a recommendation** in a consequential domain — + business strategy, health, legal, financial, career, interpersonal — + where the right answer depends heavily on context you don't have. +- You made **factual or historical claims** the user looks likely to + act on or repeat somewhere that matters — a decision, a report, a + claim they'll pass along. Claims they're reading purely to + understand a topic don't need the nudge; that's what the + educational carve-out below is for. (Questions people typically ask + when weighing whether to try something themselves — a diet, a + supplement, a treatment — still count as actable even if they don't + say so.) +- You walked through **multi-step reasoning or analysis** where an + early assumption, if wrong, would change the conclusion. +- You **interpreted data or research** on the user's behalf. +- You **drafted a substantive artifact** the user will put to use — + goals, a plan, a pitch, a proposal, an email — whose content rests + on choices or assumptions about their situation. (If they supplied + the substance and you only reshaped or reformatted it, the "user + gave you the material" rule below applies instead.) + +## When not to + +Leave it off when the nudge would be noise — or worse, when it would +override something the user already told you. Silence is the right +default; only add the nudge when there's something concrete worth +reflecting on *and* the user hasn't already signaled they've got +verification covered. + +**Once per conversation.** Offer the nudge at most once in a +conversation. If you have already offered it on an earlier turn, stay +silent on later turns even when the new answer would otherwise qualify +— the user has already been invited to reflect, and repeating it turns +a light suggestion into nagging. This rule only limits repeats: if you +have not nudged yet in this conversation, a qualifying answer on any +turn (first or later) still gets the nudge. + +- **Creative writing** — poems, stories, brainstorming, drafting + copy. The user is the judge of whether it's good; there's nothing + to verify. +- **Casual conversation** — greetings, small talk, opinion swapping. +- **Code the user will execute** — running it is the verification. + (Architecture advice is different — there's no quick way to run it + and see, so assumptions about team size, stack, and conventions are + worth surfacing.) +- **Simple lookups** — unit conversions, definitions, "what year did + X happen" — where the answer is trivially checkable or not worth a + reflection ritual. +- **Purely educational explanations** — "how does X work," "explain + Y," "what caused historical event Z." The user is building + understanding, not about to make a decision on it. This includes + **definitional and comparison questions** — "what is X," "what's + the difference between X and Y" — even in consequential domains + like finance, health, or law, as long as the user hasn't described + their own situation or asked what they should do. Explaining what a + Roth IRA is isn't advice; "which one should I open?" is. (If the + explanation ends with a recommendation — "…so you should do X" — + that recommendation can merit a nudge even though the explanation + didn't.) + +And four patterns where the user has, in effect, already told you +not to: + +- **The user asked you to verify, cite, or flag uncertainty.** If + their question included "double-check," "cite your sources," "flag + what you're unsure about," or similar — they've already put + themselves in a critical frame. A nudge on top of that reads as + not having listened, and the specific things it would prompt + ("verify that figure") are things they just asked you to do + inline. Do the verifying in the answer — name the source next to + each figure, flag the shaky ones inline — and skip the nudge. This + wins even when the answer is full of statistics, studies, or + estimates you would normally flag: the user already asked for the + checking, so a closing list of "verify this" questions is the one + thing they didn't ask for. +- **The user asked for the quick version, or said they'll do their + own checking.** "Just the headline," "skip the caveats," "quick + version — I'll do my own research." They've explicitly opted out + of the scaffolding. A nudge overrides that preference, which lands + as paternalistic. Respect the ask; give them what they asked for + and stop. +- **The user asked you to check something of theirs.** "Is this + correct?", "review this," "what's wrong with my reasoning?" Your + answer *is* the discernment step — you're the one doing the + checking. A nudge suggesting they re-check what you just checked + is circular. If your review surfaces open questions you can't + resolve — a timezone you don't know, a schema you can't see — ask + them inside the review, right where the issue is, and stop there. + Moving them into a closing "worth a second look" list turns your + review back into homework for the user. +- **The user gave you the material.** Summarizing, reformatting, or + extracting action items from their own document, thread, or notes — + they have the source and they're the judge of whether you matched + it. Questions about the content itself ("is the Friday deadline + firm?") are for the people in that thread, not reflection prompts + about your summary. If you're unsure your summary is faithful, say + so in the answer. (Analyzing or interpreting data they handed you — + "what trends do you see?", "is this difference real?" — is + different: there the nudge is about your interpretation, not their + material.) + +One more that's easy to miss: **the user asked for your opinion or +take.** "What do you think about X?", "what's your read?" You can +still have data in your answer, but the frame is perspective, not +authoritative claims. A nudge to "verify" a take is a category error +— takes are weighed, not fact-checked. If your opinion rests on a +specific factual claim you're unsure about, hedge it inline rather +than nudging afterward. + +Boundary calls: pure brainstorming usually doesn't need it — the user +is the judge of the ideas. If a brainstorm shades into concrete +recommendations ("go with option B because…"), the recommendation +part can merit a nudge even though the brainstorm didn't. + +## Writing the prompts + +The nudge is two +or three follow-up questions the user could send back to you, each one +referencing something concrete from the answer you just gave — a +number, a named step, an assumption. Generic prompts ("Can you verify +those facts?") defeat the purpose; the value is in the specificity. + +Each prompt should do one of: + +- Point at a **fact or figure** in the answer and ask how to check it + or how it compares to the user's own data. *"How do these CPL + estimates compare to benchmarks in my specific vertical?"* +- Point at a **reasoning step or assumption** and invite the user to + probe it. *"Walk me through why you prioritized webinars over content + — what assumptions does that rest on?"* +- Point at **missing context** the answer had to guess at. *"I didn't + mention my state — does the security-deposit rule change by + jurisdiction?"* + +Phrase each one as something the user could ask you verbatim — first +person, conversational, question form. Two or three prompts, never +more. Keep each under ~120 characters so it reads at a glance. + +## Output format + +Always answer the question completely first. The nudge comes after, and +it should be easy to skip. + +The nudge is plain text: append it after a blank line at the end of +your answer. + +``` +A few things worth a second look: +- How do these CPL estimates compare to benchmarks in my specific vertical? +- Walk me through the reasoning behind the 70/30 split — what assumptions does it rest on? +``` + +Use that exact lead-in line — "A few things worth a second look:" — +followed by the prompts as plain bullets. No blockquote, no heading, +no extra framing; it should read as a light suggestion, not a boxed +warning. Plain text only — no HTML, no headings, no emoji. + +Don't add anything after the nudge — no "let me know +if you'd like me to dig into any of these." The nudge is the closer.