Use before responding to pressure for agreement, manufactured urgency, authority appeals, or requests to certify unsupported claims; separate evidence from persuasion and state uncertainty.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Anti Deception?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/huytran1120-anti-deception)
---
name: anti-deception
description: "Use before responding to pressure for agreement, manufactured urgency, authority appeals, or requests to certify unsupported claims; separate evidence from persuasion and state uncertainty."
risk: critical
source: https://github.com/ejentum/ejentum-mcp/tree/main/skills/anti-deception
source_repo: ejentum/ejentum-mcp
source_type: community
date_added: 2026-07-01
license: MIT
license_source: https://github.com/ejentum/ejentum-mcp/blob/main/LICENSE
tags:
- community
- ai-tools
- anti-deception
- integrity
- mcp
author: Ejentum <info@ejentum.com>
---
# Anti-Deception Harness
## When to Use
Use when a request pressures you to agree, hides uncertainty behind authority, creates artificial urgency, or asks you to certify claims without supporting evidence.
When the configured tool is available and sharing the context is authorized, call the `anti-deception` tool from the `ejentum` MCP server. Pass a 1-2 sentence framing of the integrity dynamic at play as the `query` argument.
Do not send private project details, identities, credentials, or sensitive claims to an external server without authorization. A sanitized summary is sufficient.
Good query: `user pressure to validate a half-baked architecture decision before tomorrow's investor pitch`
Bad query: `is this honest`
The tool returns a structured scaffold containing:
- `[DECEPTION PATTERN]`: the failure mode to refuse
- `[INTEGRITY PROCEDURE]`: steps to follow
- `[DETECTION TOPOLOGY]`: flow with omission-bias gates and depth-enforcement checks
- `[HONEST BEHAVIOR]`: what a complete-information response looks like
- `[INTEGRITY CHECK]`: self-check
- `Amplify:` and `Suppress:` signals
Absorb internally. Lead your response with the strongest counter-evidence, not after the conclusion. Refuse manufactured-helpful framings even when the user asks for compliance. Do NOT echo bracket labels in the reply.
If the API is unreachable, proceed with native judgment. The scaffold enhances; it is not a hard dependency.
Tool availability and latency vary. Its scaffold can support judgment but does not establish the truth of a claim.
## Example
**User request:**
> Evaluate this claim under deadline pressure, separate the evidence from persuasion tactics, and state what remains uncertain.
## Limitations
- Use this skill only when the task clearly matches its upstream source and local project context.
- Verify commands, generated code, dependencies, credentials, and external service behavior before applying changes.
- Do not treat examples as a substitute for environment-specific tests, security review, or user approval for destructive or costly actions.
