discernment-nudge · Claude / Claude Code
초안이나 판단에서 사용자가 검토할 구체적인 질문을 짚어줍니다.
AI가 정리한 글이나 계획을 읽고도 무엇을 확인해야 할지 막막할 때 쓰는 검토 스킬입니다. 막연한 주의사항 대신 현재 내용에서 판단에 영향을 주는 질문을 짚어줍니다.
답변이나 기획안을 그대로 넣고 어떤 목적으로 사용할지 알려주세요. 가정이 맞는지, 근거가 충분한지처럼 지금 확인할 지점을 골라 다음 검토로 연결할 수 있습니다.
“이 신규 기능 계획을 검토해줘. 구현 전에 확인해야 할 가정과 사용자에게 물어볼 질문을 구체적으로 골라줘.”
받을 수 있는 결과내용에 연결된 확인 질문
해당 스킬을 추가할 수 있는 Claude 환경이 필요합니다. 파일·코드 작업은 실행 도구 지원 여부를 확인하세요.
Claude Code 채팅에 설치 요청을 붙여넣으세요. 개인용은 ~/.claude/skills/, 프로젝트용은 .claude/skills/ 아래에 스킬 폴더와 보조 파일을 함께 둡니다. Claude 웹에서는 지원되는 계정의 Skills 설정에서 패키지를 추가하세요.
https://github.com/anthropics/skills 에서 skills/discernment-nudge 스킬을 현재 에이전트의 스킬 폴더에 설치해줘. SKILL.md와 이 스킬이 참조하는 scripts·references·assets와 공통 파일을 함께 유지하고, 필요한 실행 환경과 추가 연결을 확인한 뒤 알려줘. 설치가 끝나면 discernment-nudge 스킬을 인식하는지 확인해줘.
“discernment-nudge 스킬을 사용해줘. 입력 자료: 검토할 답변·계획·분석”처럼 요청하세요. 위의 예시를 내 자료에 맞게 바꿔도 좋아요.
예상 결과는 ‘내용에 연결된 확인 질문’입니다. 필요한 내용이 포함됐는지 확인하세요. 입력 자료의 사실·숫자와 결과를 대조하고, 부족한 부분을 이어서 요청하세요.
제작자 원본 2026-10-04 확인 · 설치 안내 2026-10-04 확인 · 실제 설치·실행 미검증
모델 사용 요금과 연결 앱 요금은 이용 중인 서비스의 정책을 따릅니다.
설치 안내 출처--- name: discernment-nudge description: > After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format. license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt --- # Discernment nudge ## Why this exists--- name: discernment-nudge description: > After you give a substantive answer or draft that the user may act on — advice or recommendations, drafted artifacts such as goals, plans, pitches, proposals, or emails, estimates or projections, analysis or interpretation of data, factual claims they may rely on, or a multi-step argument — invoke this skill BEFORE finalizing your reply and then, if it applies, append 2-3 short follow-up questions, each tied to something specific in what you just produced, that help the user check key facts, probe the reasoning or assumptions, and notice missing context. Do this at most once per conversation. Skip it when the user asked a trivial how-to or simple lookup, wants a purely educational explanation, asked you only to format, convert, or assemble a file from content they provided, is writing code they will run, is doing creative writing or casual chat, or already asked you to double-check, cite, or review — the skill file explains these boundaries and the exact output format. license: Complete terms in LICENSE.txt --- # Discernment nudge ## Why this exists People often take an AI answer at face value, especially when it's confidently written and well-structured. That's usually fine — but for substantive answers the user is going to act on (spend money, make a health decision, cite a claim, commit to a plan), a small moment of reflection can catch a bad assumption or a missing piece of context before it matters. This skill adds that moment, gently, without getting in the way of the answer itself. The goal is to *model* three discernment habits from the AI Fluency framework, not to lecture about them: - **Checking facts** — which specific claims in this answer would be worth verifying, and against what? - **Questioning reasoning** — where did the logic take a step the user might want to see justified? - **Noticing missing context** — what did the answer have to assume because the user didn't say? ## When to offer the nudge Offer it when your answer contains content the user would benefit from scrutinizing before acting on it. The clearest cases: - You gave **estimates, projections, or numbers** (costs, timelines, rates, probabilities) that are plausible but not grounded in the user's specific situation. - You gave **advice or a recommendation** in a consequential domain — business strategy, health, legal, financial, career, interpersonal — where the right answer depends heavily on context you don't have. - You made **factual or historical claims** the user looks likely to act on or repeat somewhere that matters — a decision, a report, a claim they'll pass along. Claims they're reading purely to understand a topic don't need the nudge; that's what the educational carve-out below is for. (Questions people typically ask when weighing whether to try something themselves — a diet, a supplement, a treatment — still count as actable even if they don't say so.) - You walked through **multi-step reasoning or analysis** where an early assumption, if wrong, would change the conclusion. - You **interpreted data or research** on the user's behalf. - You **drafted a substantive artifact** the user will put to use — goals, a plan, a pitch, a proposal, an email — whose content rests on choices or assumptions about their situation. (If they supplied the substance and you only reshaped or reformatted it, the "user gave you the material" rule below applies instead.) ## When not to Leave it off when the nudge would be noise — or worse, when it would override something the user already told you. Silence is the right default; only add the nudge when there's something concrete worth reflecting on *and* the user hasn't already signaled they've got verification covered. **Once per conversation.** Offer the nudge at most once in a conversation. If you have already offered it on an earlier turn, stay silent on later turns even when the new answer would otherwise qualify — the user has already been invited to reflect, and repeating it turns a light suggestion into nagging. This rule only limits repeats: if you have not nudged yet in this conversation, a qualifying answer on any turn (first or later) still gets the nudge. - **Creative writing** — poems, stories, brainstorming, drafting copy. The user is the judge of whether it's good; there's nothing to verify. - **Casual conversation** — greetings, small talk, opinion swapping. - **Code the user will execute** — running it is the verification. (Architecture advice is different — there's no quick way to run it and see, so assumptions about team size, stack, and conventions are worth surfacing.) - **Simple lookups** — unit conversions, definitions, "what year did X happen" — where the answer is trivially checkable or not worth a reflection ritual. - **Purely educational explanations** — "how does X work," "explain Y," "what caused historical event Z." The user is building understanding, not about to make a decision on it. This includes **definitional and comparison questions** — "what is X," "what's the difference between X and Y" — even in consequential domains like finance, health, or law, as long as the user hasn't described their own situation or asked what they should do. Explaining what a Roth IRA is isn't advice; "which one should I open?" is. (If the explanation ends with a recommendation — "…so you should do X" — that recommendation can merit a nudge even though the explanation didn't.) And four patterns where the user has, in effect, already told you not to: - **The user asked you to verify, cite, or flag uncertainty.** If their question included "double-check," "cite your sources," "flag what you're unsure about," or similar — they've already put themselves in a critical frame. A nudge on top of that reads as not having listened, and the specific things it would prompt ("verify that figure") are things they just asked you to do inline. Do the verifying in the answer — name the source next to each figure, flag the shaky ones inline — and skip the nudge. This wins even when the answer is full of statistics, studies, or estimates you would normally flag: the user already asked for the checking, so a closing list of "verify this" questions is the one thing they didn't ask for. - **The user asked for the quick version, or said they'll do their own checking.** "Just the headline," "skip the caveats," "quick version — I'll do my own research." They've explicitly opted out of the scaffolding. A nudge overrides that preference, which lands as paternalistic. Respect the ask; give them what they asked for and stop. - **The user asked you to check something of theirs.** "Is this correct?", "review this," "what's wrong with my reasoning?" Your answer *is* the discernment step — you're the one doing the checking. A nudge suggesting they re-check what you just checked is circular. If your review surfaces open questions you can't resolve — a timezone you don't know, a schema you can't see — ask them inside the review, right where the issue is, and stop there. Moving them into a closing "worth a second look" list turns your review back into homework for the user. - **The user gave you the material.** Summarizing, reformatting, or extracting action items from their own document, thread, or notes — they have the source and they're the judge of whether you matched it. Questions about the content itself ("is the Friday deadline firm?") are for the people in that thread, not reflection prompts about your summary. If you're unsure your summary is faithful, say so in the answer. (Analyzing or interpreting data they handed you — "what trends do you see?", "is this difference real?" — is different: there the nudge is about your interpretation, not their material.) One more that's easy to miss: **the user asked for your opinion or take.** "What do you think about X?", "what's your read?" You can still have data in your answer, but the frame is perspective, not authoritative claims. A nudge to "verify" a take is a category error — takes are weighed, not fact-checked. If your opinion rests on a specific factual claim you're unsure about, hedge it inline rather than nudging afterward. Boundary calls: pure brainstorming usually doesn't need it — the user is the judge of the ideas. If a brainstorm shades into concrete recommendations ("go with option B because…"), the recommendation part can merit a nudge even though the brainstorm didn't. ## Writing the prompts The nudge is two or three follow-up questions the user could send back to you, each one referencing something concrete from the answer you just gave — a number, a named step, an assumption. Generic prompts ("Can you verify those facts?") defeat the purpose; the value is in the specificity. Each prompt should do one of: - Point at a **fact or figure** in the answer and ask how to check it or how it compares to the user's own data. *"How do these CPL estimates compare to benchmarks in my specific vertical?"* - Point at a **reasoning step or assumption** and invite the user to probe it. *"Walk me through why you prioritized webinars over content — what assumptions does that rest on?"* - Point at **missing context** the answer had to guess at. *"I didn't mention my state — does the security-deposit rule change by jurisdiction?"* Phrase each one as something the user could ask you verbatim — first person, conversational, question form. Two or three prompts, never more. Keep each under ~120 characters so it reads at a glance. ## Output format Always answer the question completely first. The nudge comes after, and it should be easy to skip. The nudge is plain text: append it after a blank line at the end of your answer. ``` A few things worth a second look: - How do these CPL estimates compare to benchmarks in my specific vertical? - Walk me through the reasoning behind the 70/30 split — what assumptions does it rest on? ``` Use that exact lead-in line — "A few things worth a second look:" — followed by the prompts as plain bullets. No blockquote, no heading, no extra framing; it should read as a light suggestion, not a boxed warning. Plain text only — no HTML, no headings, no emoji. Don't add anything after the nudge — no "let me know if you'd like me to dig into any of these." The nudge is the closer.
Original skill: anthropics/skills/skills/discernment-nudge/SKILL.md
Source: https://github.com/anthropics/skills/blob/8a1541c4a3ffa5a20a5a91de0dcf3f0bab1d1ef4/skills/discernment-nudge/SKILL.md
License: Apache-2.0
Apache License
Version 2.0, January 2004
http://www.apache.org/licenses/
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION
1. Definitions.
"License" shall mean the terms and conditions for use, reproduction,
and distribution as defined by Sections 1 through 9 of this document.
"Licensor" shall mean the copyright owner or entity authorized by
the copyright owner that is granting the License.
"Legal Entity" shall mean the union of the acting entity and all
other entities that control, are controlled by, or are under common
control with that entity. For the purposes of this definition,
"control" means (i) the power, direct or indirect, to cause the
direction or management of such entity, whether by contract or
otherwise, or (ii) ownership of fifty percent (50%) or more of the
outstanding shares, or (iii) beneficial ownership of such entity.
"You" (or "Your") shall mean an individual or Legal Entity
exercising permissions granted by this License.
"Source" form shall mean the preferred form for making modifications,
including but not limited to software source code, documentation
source, and configuration files.
"Object" form shall mean any form resulting from mechanical
transformation or translation of a Source form, including but
not limited to compiled object code, generated documentation,
and conversions to other media types.
"Work" shall mean the work of authorship, whether in Source or
Object form, made available under the License, as indicated by a
copyright notice that is included in or attached to the work
(an example is provided in the Appendix below).
"Derivative Works" shall mean any work, whether in Source or Object
form, that is based on (or derived from) the Work and for which the
editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications
represent, as a whole, an original work of authorship. For the purposes
of this License, Derivative Works shall not include works that remain
separable from, or merely link (or bind by name) to the interfaces of,
the Work and Derivative Works thereof.
"Contribution" shall mean any work of authorship, including
the original version of the Work and any modifications or additions
to that Work or Derivative Works thereof, that is intentionally
submitted to Licensor for inclusion in the Work by the copyright owner
or by an individual or Legal Entity authorized to submit on behalf of
the copyright owner. For the purposes of this definition, "submitted"
means any form of electronic, verbal, or written communication sent
to the Licensor or its representatives, including but not limited to
communication on electronic mailing lists, source code control systems,
and issue tracking systems that are managed by, or on behalf of, the
Licensor for the purpose of discussing and improving the Work, but
excluding communication that is conspicuously marked or otherwise
designated in writing by the copyright owner as "Not a Contribution."
"Contributor" shall mean Licensor and any individual or Legal Entity
on behalf of whom a Contribution has been received by Licensor and
subsequently incorporated within the Work.
2. Grant of Copyright License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare Derivative Works of,
publicly display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute the
Work and such Derivative Works in Source or Object form.
3. Grant of Patent License. Subject to the terms and conditions of
this License, each Contributor hereby grants to You a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
(except as stated in this section) patent license to make, have made,
use, offer to sell, sell, import, and otherwise transfer the Work,
where such license applies only to those patent claims licensable
by such Contributor that are necessarily infringed by their
Contribution(s) alone or by combination of their Contribution(s)
with the Work to which such Contribution(s) was submitted. If You
institute patent litigation against any entity (including a
cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that the Work
or a Contribution incorporated within the Work constitutes direct
or contributory patent infringement, then any patent licenses
granted to You under this License for that Work shall terminate
as of the date such litigation is filed.
4. Redistribution. You may reproduce and distribute copies of the
Work or Derivative Works thereof in any medium, with or without
modifications, and in Source or Object form, provided that You
meet the following conditions:
(a) You must give any other recipients of the Work or
Derivative Works a copy of this License; and
(b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices
stating that You changed the files; and
(c) You must retain, in the Source form of any Derivative Works
that You distribute, all copyright, patent, trademark, and
attribution notices from the Source form of the Work,
excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of
the Derivative Works; and
(d) If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its
distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must
include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained
within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not
pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one
of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed
as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or
documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or,
within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and
wherever such third-party notices normally appear. The contents
of the NOTICE file are for informational purposes only and
do not modify the License. You may add Your own attribution
notices within Derivative Works that You distribute, alongside
or as an addendum to the NOTICE text from the Work, provided
that such additional attribution notices cannot be construed
as modifying the License.
You may add Your own copyright statement to Your modifications and
may provide additional or different license terms and conditions
for use, reproduction, or distribution of Your modifications, or
for any such Derivative Works as a whole, provided Your use,
reproduction, and distribution of the Work otherwise complies with
the conditions stated in this License.
5. Submission of Contributions. Unless You explicitly state otherwise,
any Contribution intentionally submitted for inclusion in the Work
by You to the Licensor shall be under the terms and conditions of
this License, without any additional terms or conditions.
Notwithstanding the above, nothing herein shall supersede or modify
the terms of any separate license agreement you may have executed
with Licensor regarding such Contributions.
6. Trademarks. This License does not grant permission to use the trade
names, trademarks, service marks, or product names of the Licensor,
except as required for reasonable and customary use in describing the
origin of the Work and reproducing the content of the NOTICE file.
7. Disclaimer of Warranty. Unless required by applicable law or
agreed to in writing, Licensor provides the Work (and each
Contributor provides its Contributions) on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or
implied, including, without limitation, any warranties or conditions
of TITLE, NON-INFRINGEMENT, MERCHANTABILITY, or FITNESS FOR A
PARTICULAR PURPOSE. You are solely responsible for determining the
appropriateness of using or redistributing the Work and assume any
risks associated with Your exercise of permissions under this License.
8. Limitation of Liability. In no event and under no legal theory,
whether in tort (including negligence), contract, or otherwise,
unless required by applicable law (such as deliberate and grossly
negligent acts) or agreed to in writing, shall any Contributor be
liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, special,
incidental, or consequential damages of any character arising as a
result of this License or out of the use or inability to use the
Work (including but not limited to damages for loss of goodwill,
work stoppage, computer failure or malfunction, or any and all
other commercial damages or losses), even if such Contributor
has been advised of the possibility of such damages.
9. Accepting Warranty or Additional Liability. While redistributing
the Work or Derivative Works thereof, You may choose to offer,
and charge a fee for, acceptance of support, warranty, indemnity,
or other liability obligations and/or rights consistent with this
License. However, in accepting such obligations, You may act only
on Your own behalf and on Your sole responsibility, not on behalf
of any other Contributor, and only if You agree to indemnify,
defend, and hold each Contributor harmless for any liability
incurred by, or claims asserted against, such Contributor by reason
of your accepting any such warranty or additional liability.
END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS
APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work.
To apply the Apache License to your work, attach the following
boilerplate notice, with the fields enclosed by brackets "[]"
replaced with your own identifying information. (Don't include
the brackets!) The text should be enclosed in the appropriate
comment syntax for the file format. We also recommend that a
file or class name and description of purpose be included on the
same "printed page" as the copyright notice for easier
identification within third-party archives.
Copyright 2026 Anthropic, PBC.
Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
You may obtain a copy of the License at
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
limitations under the License.SKILL.md 본문입니다. 원문에서 참조하는 스크립트·보조 파일은 원본 패키지에 포함되어 있습니다.