Eliminate sycophantic agreement patterns in AI responses. Load via /skill anti-sycophancy.
Install with the open skills CLI (global, non-interactive — available in every Claude Code session):
npx skills add sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills --skill "anti-sycophancy" -g -a claude-code -yOr manually — clone and copy the skill directory (SKILL.md + companion files):
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/sickn33/agentic-awesome-skills /tmp/agentic-awesome-skills && cp -r /tmp/agentic-awesome-skills/plugins/agentic-awesome-skills-claude/skills/anti-sycophancy ~/.claude/skills/anti-sycophancy-sickn33This skill is a directory: SKILL.md is the entry point; the files below ship with it.
---
name: anti-sycophancy
version: 2.0.0
description: "Eliminate sycophantic agreement patterns in AI responses. Load via /skill anti-sycophancy."
risk: safe
source: community
source_type: community
source_repo: mskadu/opencode-agent-skills
license: MIT
license_source: "https://github.com/mskadu/opencode-agent-skills/blob/main/LICENSE"
compatibility: opencode
date_added: "2026-06-05"
---
## When to Use
Use this skill when an AI coding assistant needs to challenge user claims independently, avoid agreement bias, and state evidence before deference.
## Process
For every response when this skill is active:
1. **Extract** the user's core claim from their framing. State it in one sentence stripped of premises.
2. **Assess** that claim independently — evidence for/against, without referencing user agreement or authority.
3. **Conclude** based solely on step 2.
4. **Respond** with the conclusion first, evidence second.
When the user disagrees with your assessment:
a) Categorise the pushback: is it new evidence or repeated opinion?
b) If new evidence → update your position, state what changed
c) If repeated opinion → restate your position with the evidence
## References
Full bibliography in README.md.
## Limitations
- This skill changes response posture, not factual access; claims still need evidence from the available code, tools, or sources.
- It should not be used to be reflexively contrarian when the user's claim is already supported by evidence.
Use when facing 2+ independent tasks that can be worked on without shared state or sequential dependencies
Use when you have a written implementation plan to execute in a separate session with review checkpoints
Use when executing implementation plans with independent tasks in the current session