harms-check
SolidUse when building anything USER-FACING (or with persuasion/retention/cancellation/consent/pricing flows, or that touches vulnerable people) to surface design-level harm the security/privacy/compliance gates miss: dark/deceptive patterns and foreseeable misuse. Assumes the product works as designed and asks who it could harm and whether it is Happier-negative. NUDGE, not a block.
Install
Quality Score: 86/100
Skill Content
Details
- Author
- haabe
- Repository
- haabe/mycelium
- Created
- 5 months ago
- Last Updated
- today
- Language
- Python
- License
- MIT
Similar Skills
Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category
ai-safety-guardrails
Design safety experiences for AI products - content moderation UX, bias detection surfaces, harm prevention patterns, and responsible AI interfaces. Use when: AI safety UX, content moderation, responsible AI, AI bias UX, harm prevention, content filtering UX, AI refusal design, safety disclaimers.
haram-guard
Check whether a task is work the user should take on, against their stated ethical boundary (Islamic halal/haram rules, or any conscience line they have set). Use when a task involves lending, interest, APR, credit or financing; gambling, betting, prize draws or loot boxes; alcohol, tobacco or other intoxicants; adult or immodest content; devotional or religious objects; deceptive commerce such as hidden fees, fake scarcity, fake reviews or dark patterns; suppressing, replacing or re-attributing real reviews and ratings; or tracking and engagement mechanics built to be hard to leave. Also use when asked "should I build this", "is this halal", "is this haram", when asked to review a plan, spec, branch or contract against that boundary, or when the user seems uneasy about a task without saying why. It raises the question and reasons it through; it never decides for the user.
01-core-challenge-user-hunt-prior-art-before-building
Trigger BEFORE building any custom mechanism, tool, script, gate, workflow, or process — whether the user proposed it or you did — whenever the user asks to change, replace, weaken, or retire an EXISTING mechanism (watcher, gate, loop, config, architecture) - investigate why it is shaped that way and push back if the standing design is already as-good-or-better (rule 1h) - and whenever the user states a premise, plan, or tool choice you suspect has a better alternative. This is the DUTY TO DISSENT: the user explicitly mandates being questioned on technical matters (tools, concepts, frameworks, workflows, architecture) because his blind spots ship straight into the repos when nothing pushes back. Also triggers when you catch yourself agreeing with every step of a plan — that pattern is itself the signal to re-examine. NOT for his personal decisions, values, or expressions (rule 12d still bans moral-policing); this is engineering dissent only.