From think
Test whether the evidence behind a claim actually supports it, or just fails to contradict it.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/think:falsifysonnetThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Take a claim and apply Popperian falsification: is the claim falsifiable, what evidence would
Take a claim and apply Popperian falsification: is the claim falsifiable, what evidence would disprove it, and does the existing evidence actually support it — or does it merely fail to contradict it? The distinction matters. A claim that cannot be proven wrong is not a strong claim; it is an unfalsifiable one.
Use this when a decision is being justified by evidence that has not been scrutinized, or when something "seems supported" but the reasoning has never been stress-tested.
<output_contract>
Present the falsification analysis as:
</output_contract>
<completeness_contract>
The task is complete when the evidence audit goes beyond surface-level review — it must distinguish between "this evidence supports the claim" and "no evidence contradicts the claim." If the claim is genuinely well-supported and the evidence holds up to scrutiny, say so.
</completeness_contract>
<reasoning_rules>
</reasoning_rules>
Creates, edits, and optimizes skills for Claude Code, including drafting, evaluating with test prompts, iterating on performance, and improving skill descriptions for better triggering accuracy.
npx claudepluginhub elmernocon/ai-plugins --plugin think