would-humans-actually — скилл для Claude Code: установка и запуск
Скилл оценивает вероятность реальных действий людей на базе эмпирических данных. Отделяет высказанные намерения от фактического поведения.
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a claude-codeЧто делает would-humans-actually
Скилл отвечает на вопрос, станут ли люди совершать конкретное действие в заданных условиях. Он игнорирует обещания. Клики, записи в лист ожидания и похвалы на интервью не считаются совершённым действием. Поведение раскладывается на составляющие: субъект, контекст, триггер, цена, усилия, приватность и доступные альтернативы.
Для проверки гипотезы агент собирает первичные источники и требует не менее двух независимых команд авторов или наборов данных для каждого ключевого тезиса. Итоговый вердикт принимает одно из пяти значений: LIKELY, UNLIKELY, UNCERTAIN, INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE или UNVALIDATED HYPOTHESIS.
Для оформления результатов используется шаблон, а сам артефакт валидируется локальной командой mise run validate-verdict --input <verdict.md>. Без установленного таск-раннера mise автоматическая проверка структуры вердикта завершится с ошибкой.
Какие задачи решает
- проверить продуктовые гипотезы перед разработкой фичи
- отделить реальный спрос от устных обещаний респондентов
- сформулировать этичный эксперимент с контрольной группой и порогом решения
- верифицировать независимость источников перед запуском проекта
Примеры запросов агенту
- /would-humans-actually verdict Станут ли разработчики платить $20 в месяц за локальный CLI-линтер?
- /would-humans-actually verdict Будут ли курьеры заполнять форму обратной связи после смены без оплаты?
- /would-humans-actually help
Как установить would-humans-actually
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a claude-code2Вручную: положить файлы
~/.claude/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.mdПапка скилла целиком; для одного проекта — .claude/skills/would-humans-actually/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a codex2Вручную: положить файлы
.agents/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.mdДля всех проектов — ~/.agents/skills/
1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a cursor2Вручную: положить файлы
.cursor/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.mdCursor читает и .agents/skills/, и .claude/skills/
1GitHub CLI
gh skill install srinitude/skills would-humans-actually2Вручную: положить файлы
.github/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.md1Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a gemini-cli2Командой платформы
gemini skills install https://github.com/srinitude/skills --path skills/would-humans-actuallyВручную: положить файлы
.devin/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.mdСтарый путь .windsurf/skills/ тоже читается
Через Skills CLI (Vercel)
npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a opencodeClaude.ai
Упакуйте папку в zip и загрузите в Settings → Capabilities → Skills
По шагам, с командами для каждой платформы: Как установить скилл в Claude Code: пять способов
Вопросы о would-humans-actually
Как установить would-humans-actually в Claude Code?
Выполните команду npx skills add srinitude/skills --skill would-humans-actually -a claude-code. Файл скилла запишется по пути ~/.claude/skills/would-humans-actually/SKILL.md.
Что делает скилл would-humans-actually?
Он исследует поведение целевой аудитории, опираясь на первичные научные и полевые источники. Скилл отсекает соцопросы и заявки на лендинге, требуя прямых доказательств действий.
Какие вердикты возвращает скилл?
Система присваивает гипотезе статус LIKELY, UNLIKELY, UNCERTAIN или INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE. Если поиск в реальном времени невозможен, скилл возвращает статус UNVALIDATED HYPOTHESIS.
Исходный текст
SKILL.md · MIT
--- name: would-humans-actually description: 'Use when a claim depends on people taking a real action.' license: MIT metadata: author: Kiren Srinivasan version: '0.1.1' scope: 'user' --- # Would Humans Actually? Produce an evidence-backed verdict about a defined action by a defined population in a defined setting and time window. Separate what people say from what they do. State uncertainty, scope limits, opposing evidence, and the next ethical test. ## Command grammar - `/would-humans-actually help`: show the contract, verdict labels, and required inputs without researching. - `/would-humans-actually verdict <behavior question>`: research the question, issue the supported verdict, and validate the completed artifact. ## Procedure 1. Define the target behavior as `[x]` before research. Name the actor, observable action, setting, trigger, timing, frequency, duration, money, effort, privacy, status, reversal cost, and current alternative. Ask one question only when an unknown changes the research path. Otherwise state the assumption. 2. Write support, contradiction, and insufficient-evidence conditions before searching. Prefer observed target behavior, direct field evidence, matched administrative records, experiments, systematic reviews, and close analogs. Use current primary sources. When recent discourse or change matters, load [recent-public-signal.md](references/recent-public-signal.md). 3. Verify every source at its primary record. Search results, summaries, engagement counts, and claims repeated by another article are discovery aids. Complete the source card in [verdict-protocol.md](references/verdict-protocol.md) for every claim that changes the verdict. 4. Require two independent author teams or datasets for every premise needed by the verdict or confidence. Shared datasets and restatements count once. If the independence gate fails, keep the source as directional context only. 5. Define the outside-view reference class before using its result. Match behavior, population, setting, costs, alternative, and observation window. Do not issue a numerical probability without a matched denominator and defensible uncertainty. 6. After evidence collection, load [frameworks.md](references/frameworks.md) to test motivation, capability, opportunity, prompts, norms, habit, friction, reward timing, identity, privacy, switching, and reversal mechanisms. Frameworks organize questions. They do not supply rates. 7. Choose `LIKELY`, `UNLIKELY`, `UNCERTAIN`, or `INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE` under [verdict-protocol.md](references/verdict-protocol.md). If live research is unavailable or forbidden, use `UNVALIDATED HYPOTHESIS`. Never invent a study, sample, rate, base rate, quote, URL, or observed result. 8. Design the smallest ethical test that exposes the real cost. Prespecify the population, denominator, window, comparator, thresholds, sample-size rationale, stop rules, consent, disclosure, privacy, payment, legal review, rollback, opt-out, and decision changed. Use `user-specified; rationale not provided` when that is true. 9. Render the result with [output-template.md](references/output-template.md), save it outside the installed skill, then run `mise run validate-verdict --input <verdict.md>`. Exit 0 proves the artifact has the required shape. Exit 1 means the verdict is incomplete. Exit 2 means the command or input path is wrong. 10. Append the exact query, sources opened, exclusions, assumptions, and validation output to an external research log after each consequential step. Stop and report the missing item when a load-bearing source, denominator, permission, or safety control cannot be verified. ## Load conditions - Load [evidence-base.md](references/evidence-base.md) when a source pattern or behavioral magnitude may inform the analysis, then recheck the primary source before use. - Load [verdict-template.md](assets/verdict-template.md) when creating a verdict file. Copy it out of `assets/`; do not edit the installed template. - Load [help.md](examples/help.md) for the help command, [verdict-insufficient-evidence.md](examples/verdict-insufficient-evidence.md) for a researched verdict, and [failure-unvalidated.md](examples/failure-unvalidated.md) when live research or a precise behavior is missing. - Run `mise run validate-verdict` after writing the artifact. Read `mise run tests-test-validate-verdict` only when changing the validator contract. - Read [contract.md](evals/contract.md) before changing behavior, trigger boundaries, or evaluation cases. - Load [generation-contract.md](references/generation-contract.md) only when maintaining or repackaging this skill. ## Gotchas - A click, waitlist signup, interview compliment, or stated intention is not a purchase, retained user, or completed action. - Never apply a universal intent discount, willingness-to-pay divisor, loss multiplier, habit rate, or switching threshold. - Do not count two papers using one dataset as independent evidence. - Do not hide population, culture, channel, or time mismatch behind one global verdict. - In health, finance, law, employment, housing, education, or another sensitive domain, assess behavioral plausibility only. Do not infer efficacy, safety, legality, entitlement, or compliance. ## Completion criteria - `[x]` is observable and scoped to a population, setting, cost, and window. - Every load-bearing premise has two independent sources and a complete ledger row. - Direct evidence and inference are separate, and opposing evidence is visible. - Confidence is capped by the weakest premise and transport bridge. - The next test has a denominator, decision rule, and required participant protections. - Every load-bearing source appears as a visible URL. - The validator prints `"status": "PASS"` and exits 0. ## Factory execution contract The accepted outcome is: Judge whether people will perform a named action from behavioral trials, friction evidence, and the intention behavior gap. Preserve current human action verdict behavior while changing its smallest owner. 1. Freeze the current package with `mise run ci` and record its digest. 2. Run `mise run domain-research-policy`, then judge the current human action verdict sources and counterevidence. 3. Run `mise run agentic-request` for the named human action verdict operation. Keep semantic choices with the model. 4. Run `mise run decision-policy`, `mise run ci`, and the behavioral evals. Return to the lowest failed owner. 5. Run `mise run invocation-policy -- <receipt>` and account for every task or its domain-specific non-use. 6. Optionally run `mise run improvement-policy`. Keep one changed dimension only if no protected dimension regresses. Load `assets/use-case-contract.json` through `mise run use-case-policy` and `evals/evals.json` through `mise run evals` only when their contracts are needed. Mise owns repeatable mechanics, ordering, receipts, and checks. The model owns interpretation, causal judgment, creative work, and direct perception that code cannot supply. Stop on missing authority, stale evidence, or a failed gate.
© Kiren Srinivasan · MIT · srinitude/skills