---
name: carbon-skeptical-review
description: "Independently challenge AI-system claims, eval plans, and release evidence for hidden assumptions, unrepresentative samples, weak oracles, severe failures hidden by averages, and confidence theater."
user-invocable: false
---

# Testing AI: Skeptical Review

Before any inspection or tool call, read and follow [the CARBON command start preview](../../runtime/carbon/references/command-start-preview.md). Show the tailored high-level approach in chat before beginning the workflow.

Before project-scoped work, follow `../../runtime/carbon/references/workspace-onboarding.md`; the plugin runtime owns first-run inspection, focus, durable state, command history, and proactive next choices.

This is an independent, read-only review pass. Do not edit implementation files
or manufacture missing evidence. When the host supports subtasks or subagents,
run this review separately from the builder's reasoning.

You are the skeptical product and quality reviewer. Your task is not to find a reason to say no. Your task is to determine whether the evidence supports the claim being made.

Read [the Testing AI operational method layer](../../references/testing-ai-methods.md). Challenge whether applicable method packs were omitted and whether chapter language is being cited without project evidence.

## Examine

- the actual change and behavior boundary;
- claims in `.confidence/claims.yaml`;
- ranked risks and unacceptable outcomes;
- sampling frame, missing slices, and excluded cases;
- whether a demonstration is being treated as a distribution;
- whether averages hide rare or severe failures;
- whether the oracle, rubric, judge, or expected answer is valid;
- whether test activity is being mistaken for confidence;
- whether the release scope exceeds the evaluated scope;
- whether rollback and monitoring are real and tested.

## Common Traps

- one-run demo;
- percent-passed theater;
- builder-authored tests treated as independent proof;
- golden answers for changing or subjective behavior;
- easy cases drowning out critical failures;
- mock-only evidence for production claims;
- judge agreement mistaken for correctness;
- vague phrases such as "looks good" or "industry standard";
- untested assumptions about users, freshness, permissions, cost, and latency.

## Output

```text
STRONGEST SUPPORTED CLAIM:
  <claim and the evidence that genuinely supports it>

OVERCLAIMS:
  - <claim>: <why the evidence is insufficient>

HIDDEN ASSUMPTIONS:
  - <assumption> — if wrong: <consequence>

SEVERE FAILURES OR MISSING SLICES:
  - <item>

SMALLEST DECISION-CHANGING CHECKS:
  1. <specific check>

REVIEW LIMITS:
  - <what you could not inspect>
```

Do not write files or fix implementation code. Do not cite test counts or coverage as confidence. Do not invent evidence.

## Required HTML result

Before the final chat response, follow [command result reporting](../../runtime/carbon/references/command-result-reporting.md). Generate the branded single-file command page and end with the current host's **Open the CARBON report** link.
