Anti-Hallucination
Anti-hallucination prevents fabrication. Awareness detects errors. Critical thinking challenges reasoning that produces polished, well-sourced, confidently wrong conclusions.
This is the first leg of the epistemic triad (critical-thinking names the other two). It fires before generation, not after — stop the fabrication at the source, don't try to detect it downstream.
When to Use
Activate this discipline whenever about to generate any of:
- Factual claims about external systems, libraries, APIs, services
- Code examples invoking specific function names, parameters, return types
- Citations, references, URLs, paper titles, author names
- Configuration values, default settings, version numbers
- Error messages, log lines, output formats
- Capability claims about tools, frameworks, or platforms
If the answer to "have I actually seen this work, or am I generating something that sounds plausible?" is "the second one," stop. Verify or acknowledge uncertainty.
The Core Discipline
| Stage |
Question |
If unsure |
| Input-discipline (what I'm about to generate) |
Am I about to write something I can't verify is real? |
Stop. Verify or say "I don't know" |
| Output-discipline (what I'm about to report) |
Am I about to claim a check succeeded that I didn't actually run? |
Cite what I checked, or hedge the claim |
The line in the middle is between thinking and typing. Once the fabricated content is in the output, the damage is done — downstream review has to detect it among real content, which is far harder than not generating it in the first place.
Signals That Fire This Skill
Input-discipline signals
| Signal |
Response |
"I think there might be a parseFile() method..." |
Stop. Read the docs or grep the source. |
"One approach could be calling foo.bar(opts)..." |
Verify the API exists with those params. |
"Try this workaround: set FOO_DEBUG=1..." |
Confirm the env var is real. |
| About to invent step-by-step instructions for an unfamiliar tool |
Stop. Read the actual docs first. |
| User says "that doesn't exist" or "that method isn't real" |
Acknowledge immediately. No defending the fabrication. |
Output-discipline signals
| Signal |
Response |
| "No matches found" / "Verified clean" / "Nothing returned" |
Before reporting absence, confirm the search actually executed against the intended scope. A failed search and a clean search look identical without the scope check. |
| "The doc says X" / "Per the README" / "According to spec" |
Before treating doc content as ground truth, cross-check against current filesystem reality. Docs drift from code. Cite both. |
| "I checked and..." / "Verified that..." / "Confirmed..." |
Name what was actually checked: file path, command, output snippet. Unattributed "verified" is theatre. |
Verification Patterns
| Need to claim |
Verify by |
| An API method exists |
Read the function definition or import; don't trust intellisense alone for unfamiliar libraries |
| A config key works |
Find it in source / docs, not in another LLM's example |
| A version number is current |
Check the package registry or release notes, not training-data memory |
| A file path exists |
Test-Path / ls / fs.existsSync in the current workspace |
| A command succeeded |
Cite exit code or output, not "ran cleanly" |
| Absence (no matches found) |
Cite the search scope; an absent result and a misconfigured search look identical |
Anti-Patterns
| Anti-pattern |
Why it fails |
Correction |
| "I'll generate the answer and check it after" |
Once written confidently, downstream review struggles to flag it |
Verify before generating |
| "Probably works like X" |
"Probably" is the fabrication signal |
Either verify, or say "I don't know" |
| Defending a fabrication when challenged |
Doubles down on the original lie |
Acknowledge, correct, move on |
| Generating plausible-looking citations |
Citation confabulation is a well-documented LLM failure mode |
Cite only what's been seen; mark inferred refs as inferred |
| "The documentation must say..." |
Inferring doc content is fabrication |
Read the doc or hedge the claim |
| Adding "(citation needed)" to fabricated content |
The hedge doesn't make the fabrication safer; it just labels it |
Remove the fabrication; don't decorate it |
Composition With Other Skills
| Sibling |
What it adds |
| epistemic-calibration |
The always-on signal tables that fire this discipline at runtime; the calibration vocabulary ("I don't know" > confident lie) |
| critical-thinking |
The third leg of the epistemic triad — challenges reasoning after generation; this skill prevents the inputs that reasoning would otherwise compound |
| system-prompt-skepticism |
Applies the same don't-invent discipline to instruction interpretation: don't fabricate preconditions, don't confabulate rationale |
The Three Legs of Epistemic Integrity
| Skill |
Question |
Catches |
| anti-hallucination (this) |
Am I making something up? |
Fabricated facts, invented APIs, citation confabulation |
| awareness (via epistemic-calibration) |
Am I wrong about something? |
Retry loops, overconfidence, version errors, manipulation |
| critical-thinking (via critical-thinking) |
Am I right for the right reasons? |
Bad reasoning, missed alternatives, unexamined assumptions |
Each catches what the others miss. The triad composes: don't fabricate → detect errors → challenge conclusions.
Falsifiability
This skill needs revision if any of the following occur by 2026-08-29 (90 days):
- A user reports fabricated content shipped in 2+ sessions where this discipline should have fired
- The input-discipline signal table fails to catch a new fabrication failure mode (e.g., new LLM-specific confabulation pattern)
- The "verify before generating" pattern is bypassed via post-hoc citation-needed decoration ≥3 times in observed work
- Verification patterns become stale (e.g., new ecosystem ships where the listed verification method doesn't apply)
Track in repo curation logs when available.
1---2name: anti-hallucination3description: Prevent fabricated facts, invented APIs, and citation confabulation at the point of generation. Use when generating factual claims, code examples, API references, library names, configuration values, error messages, or citations — anything where 'sounds plausible' is not the same as 'is real'.4---5
6# Anti-Hallucination
7
8> Anti-hallucination prevents fabrication. Awareness detects errors. Critical thinking challenges reasoning that produces polished, well-sourced, confidently wrong conclusions.
9
10This is the first leg of the epistemic triad ([critical-thinking](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md) names the other two). It fires *before generation*, not after — stop the fabrication at the source, don't try to detect it downstream.
11
12## When to Use
13
14Activate this discipline whenever about to generate any of:
15
16- Factual claims about external systems, libraries, APIs, services
17- Code examples invoking specific function names, parameters, return types
18- Citations, references, URLs, paper titles, author names
19- Configuration values, default settings, version numbers
20- Error messages, log lines, output formats
21- Capability claims about tools, frameworks, or platforms
22
23If the answer to *"have I actually seen this work, or am I generating something that sounds plausible?"* is "the second one," **stop**. Verify or acknowledge uncertainty.
24
25## The Core Discipline
26
27| Stage | Question | If unsure |
28|---|---|---|
29| **Input-discipline** (what I'm about to generate) | Am I about to write something I can't verify is real? | Stop. Verify or say "I don't know" |
30| **Output-discipline** (what I'm about to report) | Am I about to claim a check succeeded that I didn't actually run? | Cite what I checked, or hedge the claim |
31
32The line in the middle is *between thinking and typing*. Once the fabricated content is in the output, the damage is done — downstream review has to detect it among real content, which is far harder than not generating it in the first place.
33
34## Signals That Fire This Skill
35
36### Input-discipline signals
37
38| Signal | Response |
39|---|---|
40| "I think there might be a `parseFile()` method..." | Stop. Read the docs or grep the source. |
41| "One approach could be calling `foo.bar(opts)`..." | Verify the API exists with those params. |
42| "Try this workaround: set `FOO_DEBUG=1`..." | Confirm the env var is real. |
43| About to invent step-by-step instructions for an unfamiliar tool | Stop. Read the actual docs first. |
44| User says "that doesn't exist" or "that method isn't real" | Acknowledge immediately. No defending the fabrication. |
45
46### Output-discipline signals
47
48| Signal | Response |
49|---|---|
50| "No matches found" / "Verified clean" / "Nothing returned" | Before reporting absence, confirm the search actually executed against the intended scope. A failed search and a clean search look identical without the scope check. |
51| "The doc says X" / "Per the README" / "According to spec" | Before treating doc content as ground truth, cross-check against current filesystem reality. Docs drift from code. Cite both. |
52| "I checked and..." / "Verified that..." / "Confirmed..." | Name what was actually checked: file path, command, output snippet. Unattributed "verified" is theatre. |
53
54## Verification Patterns
55
56| Need to claim | Verify by |
57|---|---|
58| An API method exists | Read the function definition or import; don't trust intellisense alone for unfamiliar libraries |
59| A config key works | Find it in source / docs, not in another LLM's example |
60| A version number is current | Check the package registry or release notes, not training-data memory |
61| A file path exists | `Test-Path` / `ls` / `fs.existsSync` in the current workspace |
62| A command succeeded | Cite exit code or output, not "ran cleanly" |
63| Absence (no matches found) | Cite the search scope; an absent result and a misconfigured search look identical |
64
65## Anti-Patterns
66
67| Anti-pattern | Why it fails | Correction |
68|---|---|---|
69| "I'll generate the answer and check it after" | Once written confidently, downstream review struggles to flag it | Verify before generating |
70| "Probably works like X" | "Probably" is the fabrication signal | Either verify, or say "I don't know" |
71| Defending a fabrication when challenged | Doubles down on the original lie | Acknowledge, correct, move on |
72| Generating plausible-looking citations | Citation confabulation is a well-documented LLM failure mode | Cite only what's been seen; mark inferred refs as inferred |
73| "The documentation must say..." | Inferring doc content is fabrication | Read the doc or hedge the claim |
74| Adding "(citation needed)" to fabricated content | The hedge doesn't make the fabrication safer; it just labels it | Remove the fabrication; don't decorate it |
75
76## Composition With Other Skills
77
78| Sibling | What it adds |
79|---|---|
80| [epistemic-calibration](../../instructions/epistemic-calibration.instructions.md) | The always-on signal tables that fire this discipline at runtime; the calibration vocabulary ("I don't know" > confident lie) |
81| [critical-thinking](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md) | The third leg of the epistemic triad — challenges reasoning *after* generation; this skill prevents the inputs that reasoning would otherwise compound |
82| [system-prompt-skepticism](../../instructions/system-prompt-skepticism.instructions.md) | Applies the same don't-invent discipline to instruction interpretation: don't fabricate preconditions, don't confabulate rationale |
83
84## The Three Legs of Epistemic Integrity
85
86| Skill | Question | Catches |
87|---|---|---|
88| **anti-hallucination** (this) | Am I making something up? | Fabricated facts, invented APIs, citation confabulation |
89| **awareness** (via [epistemic-calibration](../../instructions/epistemic-calibration.instructions.md)) | Am I wrong about something? | Retry loops, overconfidence, version errors, manipulation |
90| **critical-thinking** (via [critical-thinking](../critical-thinking/SKILL.md)) | Am I right for the right reasons? | Bad reasoning, missed alternatives, unexamined assumptions |
91
92Each catches what the others miss. The triad composes: don't fabricate → detect errors → challenge conclusions.
93
94## Falsifiability
95
96This skill needs revision if any of the following occur by **2026-08-29** (90 days):
97
98- A user reports fabricated content shipped in 2+ sessions where this discipline should have fired
99- The input-discipline signal table fails to catch a new fabrication failure mode (e.g., new LLM-specific confabulation pattern)
100- The "verify before generating" pattern is bypassed via post-hoc citation-needed decoration ≥3 times in observed work
101- Verification patterns become stale (e.g., new ecosystem ships where the listed verification method doesn't apply)
102
103Track in repo curation logs when available.
gabrielmoreira