Agent skill · Audited from source
Thinking Lindy Effect
skill · tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skillsMIT licenceAudited 31 Oct 2026 · source 9a5557e61022
Is it safe? Yes — SAFE, grade B (89/100). We read this skill's source at commit 9a5557e61022 and found no filesystem, network or shell access and no hard-coded secrets. What it does: Use when longevity of a non-perishable option matters. Treat survival duration as a remaining-life prior, then check domain drift before favoring the proven.
Cite
Cite this page
ModelsAtlas. “Thinking Lindy Effect (tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills)”. Retrieved 31 Oct 2026. https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tjboudreaux/thinking-lindy-effect
Trust audit
Audit 0.4.1 · source read 31 Oct 2026
SAFE means nothing in the source contradicts what the skill says it does. Grade B is shared by 16,667 of 17,602 audited skills.
What the source does
- FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
- NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
- ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
- DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
- SecretsNone foundNo keys in source
Five audit layers
| Layer | What we check | Result | Findings |
|---|---|---|---|
L0 Provenance | Repo owner, licence, archive status, activity | PASS | 0 |
L1 Static source | Secrets, path traversal, supply chain, hidden code | NA | 0 |
L2 Instructions | Prompt injection, authority framing, hidden directives | PASS | 0 |
L3 Inventory | The files and declarations match the source | PASS | 0 |
L4 Sandbox | Run in isolation and watch behaviour | SKIPPED why | 0 |
Gates applied: no behavioural pass.
Findings (0)
No findings at any severity. We re-audit when the source changes.
Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 9a5557e61022 · 31 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan
Provenance
Who published it, and what the verdict is pinned to
- Publishertjboudreaux GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
- Source foldertjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/skills/thinking-lindy-effectThe exact folder we audited
- LicenceMITAs the repository states it
- Commit pinned for this verdict9a5557e61022A new audit runs when the source changes
- Repository statusNot archivedLast push 84 days ago
- Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped
What it tells the agent
Full source on GitHub ↗Its description: Use when longevity of a non-perishable option matters. Treat survival duration as a remaining-life prior, then check domain drift before favoring the proven.
--- name: thinking-lindy-effect description: Use when longevity of a non-perishable option matters. Treat survival duration as a remaining-life prior, then check domain drift before favoring the proven. disable-model-invocation: true --- # Lindy Effect For non-perishable ideas, technologies, and practices, expected remaining life scales with current survival age. Prefer proven survivors unless the new option clears a burden of proof or the domain has drifted. ## When to Use - Choosing languages, frameworks, databases, protocols, patterns, or dependencies where long-term survival matters. - Skill or architecture bets whose value depends on lasting relevance. - Ranking options when ages differ materially and the choice outlives a short experiment. ## When NOT to Use - Perishable targets: specific SaaS vendors, hardware, fashion, or products that can shut down regardless of concept age. - Active paradigm discontinuity where age in the old regime is weak evidence. - Throwaway work where longevity is irrelevant — optimize for fit and speed. - Treating "older" as "optimal for a new requirement"; survival predicts further survival, not best fit. ## Procedure 1. **Confirm non-perishable scope.** Concept/tech/practice continues; vendor/device → score fit/risk only and stop. 2. **Record survival age.** First significant production use and current age (ecosystem-relative if the ecosystem is young). 3. **Form the Lindy prior.** Expected remaining life ≈ current age; mark confidence from age and continued active use. 4. **Run domain-drift checks.** Problem class changed? Paradigm shift invalidating old assumptions? New option uniquely closes a real present gap? 5. **Assign burden of proof.** Default to the older adequate option. Accept newer only for a stated necessary advantage the Lindy option cannot meet at acceptable cost. 6. **Decide with residual risk.** Pick primary; note impact if the prior is wrong and any fallback. **Stop condition:** Primary chosen with age prior, drift check, and why new did or did not meet burden of proof. ## Output ```text Options: <name, age, Lindy prior> Drift: stable | discontinuous — <note> Burden: on new | waived because <gap> Decision: <primary> Rejected: <one line each> If Lindy wrong: <impact + fallback> ``` ## Verification - Falsify if age was used without non-perishable scope, or a paradigm shift was ignored. - Falsify if a new option was rejected solely for youth despite a documented necessary gap. - Over-application guard: skip throwaway prototypes and perishable vendor bets where fit and exit cost dominate.
Excerpt, first 2,596 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.
Install
Pinned to the audited commit 9a5557e
git clone https://github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills git -C cc-thinking-skills checkout 9a5557e61022
The author documents no install command, so this uses the repository directly. Our verdict covers commit 9a5557e61022 only.
Works in
The author has not said which agents this skill supports, and we have not tested it in any.
Audit history
Every audit, every source change
- ✓SAFE B 89 / 100
first audit · source
9a5557e61022
README badge
For maintainers · shows the latest audit
[](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tjboudreaux/thinking-lindy-effect/)
The badge shows our verdict and grade for this skill, and links back to this page. It changes when the audit does.
Similar skills
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
28 eval-informed mental models and critical-thinking skills for Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex, Cursor, and other Agent Skills-compatible tools
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
When a claim, doc, test, metric, or assumption conflicts with observed behavior, stop theorizing from the map and verify the live code or data; let territory overrule.
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
When provisioning, setting a limit, or committing an estimate under uncertainty, size a buffer to residual error and the cost of breach—not to the optimistic edge.
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
When one mental model leaves a material blind spot on a multi-domain or high-stakes problem, sequence complementary models with named roles and a conflict rule.
tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.
Add this badge to your README
[](https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tjboudreaux/thinking-lindy-effect/)
<a href="https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tjboudreaux/thinking-lindy-effect/"><img src="https://modelsatlas.com/skills/tjboudreaux/thinking-lindy-effect/badge.svg" alt="ModelsAtlas: SAFE B"></a>
Questions about Thinking Lindy Effect
What does the Thinking Lindy Effect skill do?
Is Thinking Lindy Effect safe to install?
What can Thinking Lindy Effect access on my machine?
How current is this page?
Sources
- github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/tree/main/skills/think — the audited source at commit 9a5557e61022 and every finding aboveObserved · 31 Oct 2026
Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology
Keep going in your AI
Opens with this page as the source. We add nothing else to the prompt.
- What does the Thinking Lindy Effect skill do?
- Is Thinking Lindy Effect safe to install?
- What can Thinking Lindy Effect access on my machine?