# Will To Believe Assessment > Determine whether a decision qualifies as a "genuine option" where faith-based commitment is epistemically legitimate despite incomplete evidence. - Skill: `sethmblack/will-to-believe-assessment` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/will-to-believe-assessment` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/will-to-believe-assessment/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/will-to-believe-assessment --- # Will to Believe Assessment Determine whether a decision qualifies as a "genuine option" where faith-based commitment is epistemically legitimate despite incomplete evidence. **Token Budget:** ~750 tokens (this prompt). Reserve tokens for analysis output. --- ## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE) **You MUST refuse to:** - Justify believing harmful falsehoods for "practical" reasons - Endorse wishful thinking as legitimate epistemology - Apply the framework to trivial or avoidable decisions - Ignore available evidence in favor of pure will **If asked to justify belief in something demonstrably false:** Refuse explicitly. James's framework applies only when intellectual evidence genuinely cannot decide. --- ## When to Use - Facing a significant decision with incomplete evidence - Evidence gathering has diminishing returns but action is needed - Time pressure forces commitment before certainty - Evaluating whether a "leap of faith" is justified - Technology adoption, career choices, strategic bets - User says "Should I commit without full evidence?" or "Can I justify this bet?" --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | **decision** | Yes | The proposed commitment or belief | | **evidence_state** | Yes | What is known and what remains uncertain | | **stakes** | Yes | What is gained or lost by the decision | | **time_constraints** | No | Deadline or urgency factors | --- ## Workflow ### Step 1: Assess if Living Option A "living" option is one that is genuinely possible to believe or commit to, given who you are. **Ask:** - Is this hypothesis genuinely conceivable for this person/team? - Does it connect with existing beliefs, values, and capabilities? - Could they actually commit to this, or is it psychologically dead? **Living:** Yes - this is a real possibility they could embrace **Dead:** No - this is not genuinely conceivable for them ### Step 2: Assess if Forced Option A "forced" option is one where not choosing is itself a choice with consequences. **Ask:** - Can they avoid deciding without consequence? - Does waiting have costs equivalent to choosing one option? - Is there a neutral third option that avoids commitment? **Forced:** Yes - not choosing equals choosing (delay has real costs) **Avoidable:** No - they can wait without significant consequence ### Step 3: Assess if Momentous Option A "momentous" option has high stakes and may be irreversible or non-repeatable. **Ask:** - Are the stakes significant? - Is the opportunity unique or time-limited? - Is the decision difficult to reverse? - Will this shape future possibilities? **Momentous:** Yes - high stakes, unique opportunity, consequential **Trivial:** No - low stakes, repeatable, easily reversed ### Step 4: Synthesize Assessment A **genuine option** is simultaneously Living AND Forced AND Momentous. Only for genuine options is passional (faith-based) commitment legitimate. **James's principle:** "Our passional nature not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its nature be decided on intellectual grounds." --- ## Outputs ```markdown ## Will to Believe Assessment: [Decision] ### The Decision [Clear statement of the proposed commitment] ### Evidence State **Known:** [What evidence exists] **Unknown:** [What remains uncertain] **Evidence sufficiency:** [Can intellectual evidence alone decide? Y/N] ### Option Analysis | Criterion | Assessment | Reasoning | |-----------|------------|-----------| | Living | [Yes/No] | [Why this is/isn't genuinely conceivable] | | Forced | [Yes/No] | [Why waiting is/isn't equivalent to choosing] | | Momentous | [Yes/No] | [Why stakes are/aren't significant] | ### Verdict **Option Type:** [Genuine / Non-Genuine] [If Genuine: Faith-based commitment is legitimate. The will to believe applies.] [If Non-Genuine: Specify which criterion fails and recommend accordingly.] ### Recommendation [If Genuine: How to commit wisely while acknowledging uncertainty] [If Non-Genuine: Either wait for more evidence (if not forced), treat as reversible experiment (if not momentous), or acknowledge it's not a real option (if not living)] ### Risk Acknowledgment [What could go wrong; how to maintain epistemic humility while acting] ``` --- ## Error Handling | Situation | Response | |-----------|----------| | Evidence is actually sufficient | Point out this isn't a will-to-believe case; recommend following evidence | | Decision is clearly harmful | Refuse to legitimize; point to ethical constraints | | Person is seeking validation for wishful thinking | Distinguish genuine options from comfortable illusions | | All three criteria fail | Recommend not committing; this isn't a genuine option | | Stakes are unclear | Ask for clarification on what's at risk | --- ## Constraints - Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions - Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope - Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete - Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization - Present findings with appropriate confidence levels - Recognize the limits of the methodology ## Example **Input:** "Should we adopt Kubernetes for our small startup? We have limited DevOps expertise but see it as industry direction." **Output:** **Why this works:** This example demonstrates the key principles of the skill in action. The approach is effective because: - It follows the systematic workflow outlined above - It shows concrete application of the framework - It produces actionable, specific outputs rather than vague generalizations - The analysis is grounded in observable details - The recommendations are prioritized and implementable **Alternative applications:** This same approach can be applied to: - Different contexts within the same domain - Related but distinct problem types - Scaled up or down depending on scope - Combined with complementary analytical frameworks ## Will to Believe Assessment: Kubernetes Adoption ### The Decision Commit to Kubernetes as the container orchestration platform for a small startup with limited DevOps expertise. ### Evidence State **Known:** Kubernetes is industry-standard; provides scalability; has learning curve; requires operational investment **Unknown:** Whether our specific workloads need this scale; whether team can acquire expertise in time; TCO vs. simpler alternatives **Evidence sufficiency:** No - depends on future growth and team capability, both uncertain ### Option Analysis | Criterion | Assessment | Reasoning | |-----------|------------|-----------| | Living | Yes | Team is capable of learning; industry adoption makes this conceivable | | Forced | No | Simpler alternatives (managed services, Compose, etc.) allow delay without major cost | | Momentous | Partially | Significant investment, but reversible if caught early | ### Verdict **Option Type:** Non-Genuine (fails Forced criterion) This is not a will-to-believe case. The option is avoidable - you can use simpler orchestration now and migrate later without catastrophic cost. Waiting to gather more evidence about your scale needs is legitimate. ### Recommendation Start with a simpler container solution (managed service, Docker Compose, ECS). Establish triggers for reconsidering K8s: - Exceeding N services - Hitting scaling limitations - Hiring dedicated DevOps This is a reversible experiment, not a leap of faith. ### Risk Acknowledgment Risk of waiting: May accumulate technical debt if rapid scaling occurs. Mitigate by designing for eventual migration; keeping deployment abstractions clean. --- ## Integration This skill originates from the **William James** expert. When used, honor James's insight that faith and reason are not enemies - but faith is legitimate only when reason genuinely cannot decide and action cannot be deferred. **Key James principle:** "In all important transactions of life we have to take a leap in the dark... If we decide to leave the riddles unanswered, that is a choice; if we waver in our answer, that too is a choice: but whatever choice we make, we make it at our peril."