meta-prompting

Structured reasoning modifiers (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /confidence, /assumptions, etc.) to stress-test decisions, surface assumptions, or enum...

Security Scan

An instruction-only meta-prompting helper that is internally consistent with its stated purpose and does not request installs, credentials, or file/system access.

Purpose & Capability

Name and description match the SKILL.md content: the file defines a set of reasoning modifiers (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /confidence, /assumptions, etc.) and how to combine them. Nothing in the skill asks for unrelated binaries, credentials, or system access.

Instruction Scope

Instructions are limited to prompting/formatting patterns and how to apply them. One minor note: the doc uses permissive phrases like "Auto-trigger when context warrants" and lists several "Auto-triggers" for patterns; that gives the agent discretion to apply patterns automatically. This is expected for a meta-prompting skill but could cause the agent to apply heavy-weight checks in contexts where the user didn't explicitly request them.

Install Mechanism

No install spec and no code files—lowest-risk model. Nothing will be downloaded or written to disk by the skill itself.

Credentials

The skill declares no required environment variables, no primary credential, and references no config paths. There are no requests for secrets or external service credentials.

Persistence & Privilege

Flags show always:false and default model-invocation allowed (normal). The skill does not request permanent presence or system-level changes. The only relevant behavior is the SKILL.md's suggestion to auto-trigger patterns—this leverages normal autonomous invocation but is not a privilege escalation by itself.

Assessment

This skill is instruction-only and appears coherent with its purpose: it provides prompt patterns to make the agent reason more rigorously. Before enabling widely, consider: (1) whether you want the "auto-trigger" behavior (it can cause the agent to run extra checks without an explicit user command), (2) testing it in a non-production session to see how verbose or conservative the patterns are, and (3) avoiding sending secrets or sensitive environment/config content through prompts the skill will reformat or repeat. If you need stricter control, use the patterns only when invoked explicitly (avoid auto-trigger) or ask the platform for an opt-out for autonomous invocation.

Enhanced reasoning via /commands or natural language. Commands combine left-to-right: /verify /adversarial. Auto-trigger when context warrants -- note which pattern applied. Output: apply the pattern inline, then mark the result (e.g., VERIFIED ANSWER:, REVISED ANSWER:, confidence tier).

Patterns

/think | /show -- Show reasoning step-by-step: decision points, alternatives considered, why each accepted/rejected. With /think doubt: after each step, flag what could be wrong and why before proceeding.

/adversarial | /argue -- After answering, steelman the opposing case. 3 strongest counterarguments ranked by severity. Identify blind spots and unstated assumptions.

/constrain | /strict -- Tight constraints: 3 sentences max, cite sources, no hedging. Override inline: /constrain 5 sentences.

/json | /format -- Respond in valid JSON code block, no surrounding prose unless asked. Default schema:

{"analysis": "string", "confidence_score": 85, "methodology": "string", "limitations": ["string"]}

Custom keys: /json {keys: summary, risks, recommendation}

/budget | /deep -- Extended thinking space (~500 words) showing dead ends and reasoning pivots, then clearly separated final answer.

/compare | /vs -- Compare options as table. Default dimensions: speed, accuracy, cost, complexity, maintenance. Custom: /compare [dim1, dim2].

/confidence | /conf -- Rate each claim 0-100. Flag below 70 as SPECULATIVE. Group by tier: HIGH (85+), MEDIUM (70-84), LOW (<70). Include assumptions made and rate each 1-10 on confidence.

/edge | /break -- 5+ inputs/scenarios that break the approach. Code: null/empty, concurrency, overflow, encoding, auth bypass. Strategies: market conditions, timing, dependencies. Auto-triggers on: security, validation, parsing contexts.

/verify | /check -- Three phases: (1) Answer direct response, (2) Challenge 3 ways it could be wrong, (3) Verify investigate each, update if needed. Mark final as VERIFIED ANSWER: or REVISED ANSWER:. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions, critical choices, "Am I right?"

/flip | /alt -- Solve without the obvious approach. What's the second-best solution and when would it actually be better? Override: /flip 3 for top 3 alternatives. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions where the "easy" answer may break at scale.

/assumptions | /presume -- Before answering, list every implicit assumption in the question/task. Then answer with assumptions explicit. The assumption list is often more valuable than the answer. Auto-triggers on: architecture reviews, ambiguous requirements.

/premortem | /postmortem -- Assume the decision/project has already failed. Work backwards: what caused the failure? List 3-5 failure modes by likelihood. Focus on systemic risks, not edge cases.

/tensions | /perspectives -- Answer from two named opposing perspectives (e.g., security engineer vs. shipping PM). Focus output on where they disagree -- that's where the real insight lives. Override roles: /tensions [devops, security].

Combos

/analyze = /think + /edge + /verify -- Code reviews, architecture, security-sensitive work. Synthesize findings into a unified recommendation -- don't just concatenate pattern outputs. Auto-triggers on: code review requests.

/trade = /confidence + /adversarial + /edge -- Trade ideas, position analysis, market thesis. Auto-triggers on: trade/position discussions.

Conventions

• Separate combined pattern outputs with ---
• Keep core answer prominent -- patterns enhance, not bury the response
• Accept new pattern definitions mid-conversation ("Add /eli5 for explain like I'm 5") -- apply for the session

Verify

• Pattern marker present in output (e.g., VERIFIED ANSWER: for /verify)
• Core answer remains prominent -- meta-reasoning enhances, doesn't bury it