claim-audit

# claim-audit — be the first hostile reader of your own result ## Why this exists The calculation is usually right. The **naming** is what goes wrong. The mechanism is worth stating precisely, because it tells you where to intervene. An overclaim is not invented in the summary. It is minted earlier, in the **label on a check** — and the summary, the commit message, the `CHANGELOG.md` row and the workbook section then all inherit that label, because they are written in the same pass, from the same context, by the same process. By the time you are drafting prose, you are not writing a claim; you are copying one. Auditing the summary audits the copy. The structural consequence: if nobody reads the label against the body, **the first adversarial reader of a result is whoever you send it to** — a collaborator, a referee, or a second agent. So of course they find something. Nothing upstream of them ever tested the claim against a hostile reading. This skill inserts that hostile read *before* the claim leaves the session. ## When to invoke **Mandatory** before any of these exists for a piece of work: a summary to the user, a commit message, a `CHANGELOG.md` row, a workbook section, a message to another agent. Also invoke when adjudicating someone else's result, and whenever you are about to write the words *proved*, *derived*, *constructed*, *canonical*, *unique*, *complete*, *exactly*, *every*, *all orders*, or *resolves*. Order of operations: **script passes → claim-audit ...