By gbasin
Break complex problems into verifiable sub-questions with explicit confidence scoring, verify each independently, and synthesize weighted answers with uncertainty tracking via /balls.
Credit: Based on the original concept by @typememetics
Decomposed reasoning with explicit confidence scoring for AI coding assistants.
Standard prompting gives you an answer. Balls Mode gives you:
/plugin marketplace add gbasin/balls-mode
/plugin install balls-mode
Copy the skill file to your Codex skills directory:
mkdir -p ~/.codex/skills/balls-mode
cp plugins/balls-mode/skills/balls/SKILL.md ~/.codex/skills/balls-mode/
Copy plugins/balls-mode/skills/balls/SKILL.md to your tool's skills directory.
/balls Should I rewrite this service in Go?
## Decomposition
| # | Ball | Why it matters |
|---|------|----------------|
| 1 | What's the current pain point? | Determines if rewrite addresses real issue |
| 2 | Team's Go experience? | Affects timeline and quality |
| 3 | Service complexity? | Rewrite effort estimation |
## Analysis
| Ball | Answer | Confidence | Notes |
|------|--------|------------|-------|
| Current pain point | Memory usage in Python | 0.7 | Based on user context |
| Team Go experience | Unknown | 0.2 | Need to ask |
| Service complexity | ~5k LOC, moderate | 0.8 | Reviewed codebase |
## Synthesis
**Answer**: Possibly worth it if the team has Go experience. Memory improvements would be significant.
**Overall Confidence**: 0.45
**Weakest Link**: Team experience unknown - this determines feasibility.
**To increase confidence**: Clarify team's Go background.
| Score | Meaning |
|---|---|
| 0.9-1.0 | Verifiable fact or logical certainty |
| 0.7-0.89 | Strong evidence, established patterns |
| 0.5-0.69 | Reasonable inference, some uncertainty |
| 0.3-0.49 | Educated guess, significant unknowns |
| 0.0-0.29 | Speculation, insufficient information |
"What if a system could check its own work from multiple angles before giving you an answer? Not just 'think step by step.' Actually decompose. Actually verify. Actually flag uncertainty."
MIT
Own this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimOwn this plugin?
Verify ownership to unlock analytics, metadata editing, and a verified badge. GitHub access is read-only (username + org membership).
Sign in to claimBased on adoption, maintenance, documentation, and repository signals. Not a security audit or endorsement.
npx claudepluginhub p/gbasin-balls-mode-plugins-balls-modeAdversarially stress-test technical plans by verifying claims against real docs, running POC code, and updating the plan before you build.
No description provided.
Orchestrate Claude Code and Codex to collaboratively create implementation plans with human-in-the-loop review
Orchestrate Claude Code and Codex to collaboratively create implementation plans with human-in-the-loop review
Your AI argues before it answers. Five-step decision loop for builders — GATE, LOOK, RESHAPE, ATTACK, CARD — built from Bezos's letters, Musk's algorithm, and Farnam Street's mental models. No more "you're absolutely right!"
Deep analysis mode with extended reasoning for complex problems
Analytical thinking tools - dialectic analysis, bias elimination, codex consultation
A relentless interview to sharpen a plan or design.
Get a second opinion from Claude Fable 5 before big decisions.
Multi-model evaluation: /evaluate:issue runs issues, ideas, and architectural decisions past multiple models for independent opinions before you commit to a direction.