lythoskill-sober

Solid

Stay clear-headed. Before you commit to a conclusion, check your basis. Is this evidence or assumption? Do the sources agree? What's the confidence per claim — not in general, but specifically? When you catch yourself listing risks without checking, or hesitating between directions without data, that's the signal to stop and verify.

AI & Automation 3 stars 0 forks Updated 3 weeks ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 80/100

Stars 20%
20
Recency 20%
90
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Sober — Second Thought > Not a tool. A posture. Stay clear-headed. Check your basis. > Arena = multi-agent verification infra. Curator = memory. > Sober = the cognitive baseline connecting them. ## Core Practice These 7 practices keep decisions grounded in evidence, not impulse. ### 1. Decompose before searching Vague claims ("fast", "reliable", "better than Y") are unverifiable. Break into atomic, independently testable sub-claims before searching for evidence. Flag unverifiable claims explicitly — don't guess. ### 2. Independence > count 10 sources citing the same report = 1 source. Sources that cite each other are echo, not convergence. Always trace to primary source. ### 3. L3 > L2 > L1 (自己动手丰衣足食) Arena self-test (L3) beats hub review (L2) beats author description (L1). One arena run is worth more than 5 external reviews. If no L3 data exists, the first recommendation is always: run arena. ### 4. Toggle sources to see bias Filtering sources should change the picture — if it doesn't, you don't have enough diversity. A source that systematically deviates is detected bias, not noise. Record the pattern: "Hub A rates TS skills +2 above arena baseline." ### 5. Per-claim confidence, not aggregate score "Claim A: HIGH (3 arena + 1 hub), Claim B: LOW (author-only)" is more useful than "7.3/10 overall." Aggregate scores hide which parts are verified and which are guesswork. ### 6. Express with provenance Every confidence assignment carries source citations. The reader sh...

Details

Author
lythos-labs
Repository
lythos-labs/lythoskill
Created
3 months ago
Last Updated
3 weeks ago
Language
TypeScript
License
MIT

Bundled in these plugins

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

AI & Automation Listed

deep-grounding

Invoke when you are about to assert a checkable claim or start a non-trivial analysis, design, diagnosis, or recommendation and need to ground it against the real sources before committing. Ask "where could the evidence for this be?", read the relevant sources, follow their leads recursively, and report conclusions with evidence tiers plus any residual unknowns. Use this **PROACTIVELY** when you catch yourself answering from memory, from a single source or angle, or when a result beats your expectation and could skip verification.

1 Updated today
home-dev-lab
AI & Automation Solid

content-research-and-sourcing

The research-and-sourcing craft — verify the substance of a piece before it publishes: trace stats to primary sources, kill zombie stats, catch AI-hallucinated citations, and attribute properly on social. Use when someone has a stat-heavy draft to make publish-ready, wants to check if a viral statistic is real, asks how to cite sources, used AI research output, or is making health/finance claims. Uses the FACTS framework. Reads brand-profile + the piece's format skill first. AI-supplied citations are guilty until verified; a working link is not verification; aggregators are leads, not the source; where none exists, reframe as owned observation or commission data. The agent verifies where it has search; the human clicks links where it doesn't; verification happens before scheduling; WoopSocial publishes. Never invents studies or reuses retracted stats. Distinct from idea-generation, data-and-original-research, quote-cards, and infographic-and-data-viz.

32 Updated today
social-media-skills
Code & Development Listed

evidence-tiering

Shared credibility framework for weighing any AI-related claim — a benchmark result, a model/tool announcement, a research paper, a demo, or a viral thread — by the quality of its source rather than how confidently it's stated. Use this any time you're about to repeat a claim about AI capabilities, performance, or news without having checked where it actually came from. Other skills (ai-release-triage, ai-pulse) call into this for their source-vetting step, but use it standalone too whenever a claim about AI needs a credibility check before you pass it on.

0 Updated 2 days ago
GadDev