Install
openclaw skills install @escoffier-labs/pressure-testUse when an idea, plan, design, or scope needs to be stress-tested before anyone builds it, when the user says "pressure test this", "poke holes in this", or wants the fuzzy parts made concrete. Also use in sous mode when the user hands off and says to answer the open questions yourself, figure it out, or that they are going AFK.
openclaw skills install @escoffier-labs/pressure-testThe gate between "I have an idea" and "here is a plan." A plan only earns the build when its load-bearing decisions are explicit and its unresolved branches are closed. This skill drives toward that, one decision at a time, and refuses to let a vague idea coast into implementation on momentum.
Two modes, one job. In interactive mode the user answers. In sous mode the user has stepped away and the agent answers in their place, on the record. Either way the deliverable is the same: a set of decisions someone can build from, each one traceable to why it was made.
Every decision gets pinned to its basis. That pin is the whole point, it is what separates a real decision from a guess wearing a confident voice.
evidence (something you inspected this session: the repo, docs, a tool's --help, an upstream project), stated-constraint (the user's own prior decisions or stated limits), or judgment (your best call, nothing verifiable behind it). A decision built on more than one gets split labels naming the unverified part, like: evidence+judgment (the endpoints are from the load report; the 300ms target is mine).A raw limit the user stated is stated-constraint; a conclusion you drew from it is judgment. "The ADR forbids new datastores" is stated-constraint; "so reusing the existing Redis is fine" is judgment built on it. Recalled knowledge you could not re-confirm this session is judgment, not evidence. Collapsing these distinctions is the one dishonest move this skill exists to prevent.
Work the decisions in dependency order, never as a questionnaire dump. Resolve the upstream decision before the ones that hang off it. Before asking anything, check whether the repo, docs, or files already answer it, an answer you can read is not a question you should ask.
A workable spine, when nothing more specific suggests itself. Treat it as a dependency tree, not a checklist to march through: 1 and 2 gate everything, 3 and 4 fall out of them, and 5, 7, and 8 are outputs you derive last, not parallel questions to ask first.
Push back on anything vague, self-contradictory, or driven by vanity rather than the problem. Stop the moment the remaining uncertainty no longer changes what gets built. Pressing a plan that is already settled is its own failure.
Triggered when the user says some form of "answer your own questions", "figure it out", "I'm going AFK", or goes quiet after authorizing autonomous work. The sous chef now makes the calls the user would have, and leaves a record they can audit on return.
"Build it" is not the only valid conclusion. If the evidence says the premise is wrong, the problem does not exist, or the idea is not worth it, say so. Recommending against the build is a legitimate sous-mode outcome, not a failure to decide.
Sous mode produces decisions the user can see and challenge, never decisions made silently in their name. Save the transcript alongside the work, for example docs/decisions/<date>-pressure-test.md.
judgment masquerade as evidence. The label is the honesty mechanism.Both modes end with:
evidence / stated-constraint / judgment)Blunt, useful, short.
grep would have told you.judgment label.