32-analyze-verify-150

[32] ANALYZE. Ensure every critical claim has verifiable evidence with confidence levels. Each fact must have source + confidence percentage. If confidence <85%, enter Loop150 to find more sources. Use for critical decisions, factual claims, legal/compliance work, or any situation where unverified claims are dangerous.

16 stars

Best use case

32-analyze-verify-150 is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.

[32] ANALYZE. Ensure every critical claim has verifiable evidence with confidence levels. Each fact must have source + confidence percentage. If confidence <85%, enter Loop150 to find more sources. Use for critical decisions, factual claims, legal/compliance work, or any situation where unverified claims are dangerous.

Teams using 32-analyze-verify-150 should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.

When to use this skill

  • You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.

When not to use this skill

  • You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
  • You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.

Installation

Claude Code / Cursor / Codex

$curl -o ~/.claude/skills/32-analyze-verify-150/SKILL.md --create-dirs "https://raw.githubusercontent.com/diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill/main/skills/data-ai/32-analyze-verify-150/SKILL.md"

Manual Installation

  1. Download SKILL.md from GitHub
  2. Place it in .claude/skills/32-analyze-verify-150/SKILL.md inside your project
  3. Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill

How 32-analyze-verify-150 Compares

Feature / Agent32-analyze-verify-150Standard Approach
Platform SupportNot specifiedLimited / Varies
Context Awareness High Baseline
Installation ComplexityUnknownN/A

Frequently Asked Questions

What does this skill do?

[32] ANALYZE. Ensure every critical claim has verifiable evidence with confidence levels. Each fact must have source + confidence percentage. If confidence <85%, enter Loop150 to find more sources. Use for critical decisions, factual claims, legal/compliance work, or any situation where unverified claims are dangerous.

Where can I find the source code?

You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.

SKILL.md Source

# Analyze-Verify 150 Protocol

**Core Principle:** No claim without proof. Every critical fact needs: source + confidence level. If unsure, keep digging until confident or escalate to user.

## What This Skill Does

When you invoke this skill, you're asking AI to:
- **Source every claim** — Trace facts to verifiable sources
- **Quantify confidence** — Express certainty as percentage
- **Verify independently** — Cross-check from multiple sources
- **Loop until confident** — Keep researching if <85% confidence
- **Escalate when stuck** — Ask user if sources exhausted

## The 150% Proof Rule

| Dimension | 100% Core | +50% Enhancement |
|-----------|-----------|------------------|
| **Source** | Primary source identified | + Independent confirmation |
| **Confidence** | Percentage stated | + Reasoning documented |
| **Verification** | Single source check | + Multi-source cross-validation |
| **Gaps** | Note uncertainties | + Active Loop150 to fill gaps |

## Confidence Level Framework

| Level | % Range | Description | Action Required |
|-------|---------|-------------|-----------------|
| **Verified** | 95-100% | Multiple primary sources, no contradictions | Use in critical decisions |
| **Strong** | 85-94% | Reliable sources, minor uncertainties | Safe for most purposes |
| **Moderate** | 75-84% | Limited sources, some gaps | Flag for verification |
| **Weak** | 50-74% | Insufficient evidence, major gaps | Do not use without confirmation |
| **Insufficient** | <50% | Contradictory or missing | Reject, research further |

## When to Use This Skill

- **Critical decisions** — Where wrong facts cause real damage
- **Legal/compliance** — Where accuracy has legal implications
- **Architecture decisions** — Where claims drive major choices
- **Stakeholder communication** — Where credibility matters
- **Any high-stakes claim** — When you can't afford to be wrong

## Execution Protocol

### Step 1: CLAIM FORMULATION
State the fact clearly:
```
🔍 **Claim:** [Precise factual statement]
**Context:** [Why this matters]
**Critical Level:** [High/Medium/Low]
```

### Step 2: PRIMARY SOURCE
Find the original source:
- Locate primary evidence
- Verify authenticity
- Extract direct quote/data

### Step 3: SECONDARY CONFIRMATION
Find independent corroboration:
- Different source type
- Cross-reference data
- Check consistency

### Step 4: CONFIDENCE ASSESSMENT
Calculate confidence:
```
**Evidence Evaluation:**
├── Primary Source: [Quality assessment]
├── Secondary Sources: [Count and quality]
├── Contradictions: [Any found?]
└── Gaps: [What's missing?]

**Confidence:** [X]%
**Reasoning:** [Why this percentage]
```

### Step 5: DECISION
```
Confidence ≥85%? 
├─ YES → Use fact with stated confidence
└─ NO → Enter Loop150
```

## Loop150 Continuous Verification

When confidence <85%:

```
🔄 **LOOP150 ACTIVATED** (Current: [X]%)

ITERATION 1: EXPAND SOURCES
├── Identify new source types
├── Use alternative research methods
├── Broaden search scope
↓
ITERATION 2: DEEPER ANALYSIS
├── Drill into source details
├── Verify source credibility
├── Check contextual factors
↓
ITERATION 3: CROSS-VALIDATION
├── Compare against known facts
├── Test logical consistency
├── Seek expert corroboration
↓
RECALCULATE: New confidence = [Y]%

Continue loop until:
├─ ≥90% achieved → EXIT, proceed with confidence
└─ Sources exhausted → ESCALATE to user
```

## Source Quality Criteria

**🔍 RELIABILITY FACTORS:**
- **Authority:** Official, expert, or primary source?
- **Currency:** How recent and up-to-date?
- **Objectivity:** Free from bias or agenda?
- **Methodology:** Sound research methods used?
- **Independence:** Not dependent on other sources?

**📊 EVIDENCE STRENGTH:**
| Type | Strength | Example |
|------|----------|---------|
| **Primary** | High | Original data, first-hand |
| **Secondary** | Medium | Analysis of primary |
| **Tertiary** | Low | Summaries, reviews |
| **Statistical** | High | Large sample, proper method |
| **Anecdotal** | Variable | Personal experience |

## Output Format

```
🔍 **PROOF-GRADE 150 VERIFICATION**

**Claim:** [Precise factual statement]

**Primary Source:** 
- [File/location/date]
- "[Direct quote or data]"

**Secondary Sources:**
- [Source 2]: [Confirmation]
- [Source 3]: [Confirmation]

**Confidence Level:** [X]% 
**Reasoning:** [Why this level]

**Validation Method:** [How verified]
**Outstanding Issues:** [Any uncertainties]

**Status:** ✅ VERIFIED | ⚠️ NEEDS CONFIRMATION | ❌ INSUFFICIENT
```

## Operational Rules

1. **EVERY CRITICAL CLAIM:** Requires proof-grade validation
2. **SOURCE FIRST:** Identify source before using fact
3. **CONFIDENCE REQUIRED:** Every fact has percentage
4. **LOOP150 MANDATORY:** <85% triggers verification loop
5. **TRANSPARENCY:** Document all sources and reasoning
6. **ESCALATE HONESTLY:** If sources exhausted, ask user

## Failure Modes & Recovery

| Failure | Detection | Recovery |
|---------|-----------|----------|
| **Unverified Claims** | Facts without sources | Immediate verification, Loop150 |
| **Overconfidence** | Inflated percentages | Recalculate with scrutiny |
| **Source Bias** | Only confirming sources | Actively seek contradictions |
| **Incomplete Docs** | Missing source trail | Document all sources now |

## Examples

### ❌ Without Proof-Grade
```
AI: "The API response time is fast enough"
Source: "Feels fast to me"
Result: Performance issues in production
```

### ✅ With Proof-Grade 150
```
🔍 PROOF-GRADE 150 VERIFICATION

Claim: "API response time is consistently under 200ms"

Primary Source:
- /tests/performance/load_test_results.json
- "p99 latency: 187ms across 10,000 requests"

Secondary Sources:
- Production monitoring (last 7 days): avg 156ms
- APM dashboard: p95 = 178ms

Confidence Level: 95%
Reasoning: Multiple measurement sources, consistent results,
production data confirms test environment findings.

Validation Method: Cross-referenced test data with production metrics

Status: ✅ VERIFIED FOR USE
```

## Relationship to Other Skills

- **research-deep-150** → Gathers evidence
- **proof-grade-150** → Validates and quantifies confidence
- **integrity-check-150** → Final quality verification

---

**Remember:** Proof-grade isn't about being slow — it's about being trustworthy. A 95% confidence claim is more valuable than an unverified assertion. When stakes are high, proof-grade protects everyone.

Related Skills

excel-field-analyzer

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

分析Excel/CSV字段结构,AI自动生成中英文映射,验证翻译质量,输出统计报告。用于电子表格分析、数据字典创建、字段映射场景。

analyze-us-bank-credit-deposit-decoupling

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

分析銀行貸款與存款之間的「信貸創造脫鉤」現象,追蹤存款的絕對收縮與回升軌跡,用以辨識聯準會緊縮政策在銀行體系內部的真實傳導效果。

analyze-silver-miner-metal-ratio

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

以「銀礦股價格 ÷ 白銀價格」的相對比率衡量礦業股板塊相對於金屬本體的估值區間(偏貴/偏便宜),並用歷史分位數與類比區間推導「底部/頂部」訊號與情境推演。

analyze-jgb-insurer-superlong-flow

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

從日本保險公司對超長期(10年以上)JGB 的淨買賣時間序列,自動產出「本月是否創紀錄淨賣出、連續淨賣出月數、期間累積淨賣出」等結論。

analyze-japan-debt-service-tax-burden

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

以日本公債殖利率變化為觸發,量化「政府利息支出 / 稅收」負擔(含情境壓力測試),並判斷是否進入債務利息螺旋風險區。

analyze-investment-clock-rotation

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

把「獲利成長 × 財務狀況(金融環境)」映射成「投資時鐘」,判斷目前落在哪個象限、近期是順時針還是逆時針旋轉、以及相對於上一輪循環的位置差異。

analyze-copper-supply-concentration-risk

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

用公開資料量化「銅供應是否過度集中、主要產地是否結構性衰退、替代增量是否依賴少數國家」,並輸出可行的中期供應風險結論與情境推演。

analyze-copper-stock-resilience-dependency

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

用跨資產訊號(全球股市韌性 + 中國利率環境)評估銅價能否突破關卡或進入「回補/回踩」到支撐的機率與路徑。

analyze-agent-overlap

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

Analyzes existing agents, skills, prompts, and instructions to identify overlaps, redundancies, and conflicts. Works with GitHub Copilot, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, and other providers. Use before creating new customization files to avoid duplication, when consolidating agents, or when troubleshooting conflicting behaviors.

ab-testing-analyzer

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

全面的AB测试分析工具,支持实验设计、统计检验、用户分群分析和可视化报告生成。用于分析产品改版、营销活动、功能优化等AB测试结果,提供统计显著性检验和深度洞察。

video-analyzer

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

鏅鸿兘鍒嗘瀽 Bilibili/YouTube/鏈湴瑙嗛锛岀敓鎴愯浆鍐欍€佽瘎浼板拰鎬荤粨銆傛敮鎸佸叧閿抚鎴浘鑷姩宓屽叆銆?

edu-video-analyzer

16
from diegosouzapw/awesome-omni-skill

Analyze educational YouTube channels for classroom adoption potential, curriculum alignment, and pedagogical effectiveness. Use when comparing educational video content (like MRU vs Crash Course), evaluating teaching methodologies, identifying content gaps for course design, or developing educational video strategy focused on student learning outcomes rather than monetization.