harms-check

Solid

Use 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.

AI & Automation 45 stars 3 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 86/100

Stars 20%
55
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Harms Check Skill Design-time harm-to-users check — the safety-by-design lens the security/privacy/compliance gates structurally miss. Assumes the product works EXACTLY as designed. `/threat-model` (STRIDE) asks how an attacker breaks it; `/privacy-check` asks about personal data; neither asks: **who could this harm when it works as intended, and how could a legitimate feature be misused?** This is the design-time front-end of the BVSSH **Happier** dimension: a manipulative or harmful design is Happier-negative by definition, and this gate catches it before `/bvssh-check` would only measure it post-hoc. ## When to run (JiT — conditional, NOT universal) Fires only when the product-shape warrants it: - **User-facing** product/feature (real people use it), OR - has **persuasion / retention / conversion / cancellation / consent / pricing** flows (the dark-pattern surface), OR - **touches vulnerable people** (children, patients, financially- or otherwise at-risk). If none apply (internal dev tooling, a library, a build script), **SKIP — say so and move on.** This is a NUDGE, never a hard block. ## Workflow ### 1. Dark / deceptive patterns (Brignull) — does the design manipulate the user? Check the design against the recognised, regulated catalog (deceptive.design; FTC / EU Digital Fairness Act / GDPR-consent): - [ ] **Obstruction / roach motel** — easy to get in, hard to cancel, leave, or delete - [ ] **Sneaking** — hidden costs, drip pricing, sneak-into-basket, hidden s...

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 & Automation Listed

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.

3 Updated 1 months ago
varunk130
Code & Development Listed

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.

0 Updated 4 days ago
edriso
AI & Automation Listed

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.

0 Updated 6 days ago
markkennethbadilla