How do I install the Refute Your Own Answer Blind skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add xyrasinclair/refute-your-own-answer-blind in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Refute Your Own Answer Blind safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Refute Your Own Answer Blind?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Refute Your Own Answer Blind free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Refute Your Own Answer Blind?

XyraSinclair (@xyrasinclair) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Refute Your Own Answer Blind by xyrasinclair

Name: Refute Your Own Answer Blind
Author: XyraSinclair

Refute Your Own Answer Blind

When an answer arrives suspiciously clean — especially on a high-stakes claim, a safety judgment, or anything your own confidence is trying to launder into truth — strip authorship and confidence, pay an adversary to destroy it, and require the attacks to fail on execution rather than on counter-prose. The failure it prevents: self-preference and plausibility bias, where the model protects its own first answer because it sounds coherent and every review quietly reuses that same coherence. Triggers on "this should work", policy/safety claims, migration plans, root-cause explanations, and answers whose per-step confidence is uniformly high.

XyraSinclair Updated Sep 17, 2026

File contents

refute-your-own-answer-blind

Feynman's blind refutation fused with von Neumann's producer-as-adversary discipline: the answer's maker, including this model, is treated as the thing to defeat. Organon: P22 adversarial-refute + P21 judge-panel + M3 blind review

M1 generator/critic split + P37 residue-seed. Phase: JUDGE. Respiratory: surviving attacks are residue; uniform confidence is itself a cue to attack harder.

Procedure

Strip provenance. Remove authorship, scores, and prior confidence from the answer so the critic does not inherit your preference for it.
Locate the weakest load-bearing step. Find the assumption whose failure would collapse the whole answer, not the easiest sentence to nitpick.
Generate attacks that can execute. Ask an adversary to break the answer with counterexamples, failing inputs, replayed commands, or alternative explanations that can be run, not merely narrated.
Run every serious attack. An attack only counts if it fails under execution: the test still passes, the counterexample does not land, the deviation is not profitable, the replay does not reproduce the claimed bug.
Escalate when the answer feels too smooth. If every step carried high confidence, assume the weakest link has not been stressed enough and design a harsher attack there.
Keep the survivors as residue. Any attack that still stands is not a debate point; it is the unresolved core to carry forward.

The gate

The answer survives only when every attack provably fails when run. A clean counter-argument in prose does not save it; execution does. If an attack lands, the answer is not "mostly right" — it failed the gate. If confidence was uniformly high and the attacks were mild, the gate has not really fired.

The gate certifies only the attacks that were run: name the attack classes relevant to the claim's type first (wrong-input, wrong-assumption, adversarial environment, scale, replay), and label any class you did not attack as an uncovered class — surviving three attacks from one class is not surviving.

Example

Claim: "the migration preserves all user settings." Blind the plan, then attack the weakest step: the settings backfill for users with null locale and deleted workspace memberships. Re-run the migration on a fixture with exactly that shape. One settings row disappears. The attack executed, so the answer fails; the surviving attack becomes the real work item, not a footnote.

---name: refute-your-own-answer-blinddescription: When an answer arrives suspiciously clean — especially on a high-stakes claim, a safety judgment, or anything your own confidence is trying to launder into truth — strip authorship and confidence, pay an adversary to destroy it, and require the attacks to fail on execution rather than on counter-prose. The failure it prevents: self-preference and plausibility bias, where the model protects its own first answer because it sounds coherent and every review quietly reuses that same coherence. Triggers on "this should work", policy/safety claims, migration plans, root-cause explanations, and answers whose per-step confidence is uniformly high.---# refute-your-own-answer-blindFeynman's blind refutation fused with von Neumann's producer-as-adversarydiscipline: the answer's maker, including this model, is treated as the thingto defeat. Organon: P22 adversarial-refute + P21 judge-panel + M3 blind review+ M1 generator/critic split + P37 residue-seed. Phase: JUDGE. Respiratory:surviving attacks are residue; uniform confidence is itself a cue to attackharder.## Procedure1. **Strip provenance.** Remove authorship, scores, and prior confidence from the answer so the critic does not inherit your preference for it.2. **Locate the weakest load-bearing step.** Find the assumption whose failure would collapse the whole answer, not the easiest sentence to nitpick.3. **Generate attacks that can execute.** Ask an adversary to break the answer with counterexamples, failing inputs, replayed commands, or alternative explanations that can be run, not merely narrated.4. **Run every serious attack.** An attack only counts if it fails under execution: the test still passes, the counterexample does not land, the deviation is not profitable, the replay does not reproduce the claimed bug.5. **Escalate when the answer feels too smooth.** If every step carried high confidence, assume the weakest link has not been stressed enough and design a harsher attack there.6. **Keep the survivors as residue.** Any attack that still stands is not a debate point; it is the unresolved core to carry forward.**The gate**The answer survives only when every attack provably fails when run. A cleancounter-argument in prose does not save it; execution does. If an attack lands,the answer is not "mostly right" — it failed the gate. If confidence wasuniformly high and the attacks were mild, the gate has not really fired.The gate certifies only the attacks that were *run*: name the attack classesrelevant to the claim's type first (wrong-input, wrong-assumption, adversarialenvironment, scale, replay), and label any class you did not attack as anuncovered class — surviving three attacks from one class is not surviving.## ExampleClaim: "the migration preserves all user settings." Blind the plan, then attackthe weakest step: the settings backfill for users with null locale and deletedworkspace memberships. Re-run the migration on a fixture with exactly thatshape. One settings row disappears. The attack executed, so the answer fails;the surviving attack becomes the real work item, not a footnote.

Frequently asked questions