Worldcoin

In an AI-saturated world, not every click deserves your trust.

Worldcoin is a human-verification decision skill for workflows where “real human required” matters.

This skill is inspired by proof-of-humanity logic:
not every action should be treated as equally trustworthy,
and not every response should be assumed to come from a real, decision-capable person.

Use this skill when you need to:

• - decide whether a workflow step should require stronger human verification
• separate bot-risk from human-trust actions
• add “human checkpoint” logic to lead, proposal, approval, or access flows
• determine which actions should only happen after stronger identity confidence
• reduce spam, fake engagement, or synthetic participation in sensitive workflows

This skill does NOT:

• - perform biometric verification
• connect to World ID, Orb, World App, or any external identity API
• replace legal identity checks, KYC, AML, or compliance review
• certify that a person is verified on any external network

What This Skill Does

Worldcoin helps:

• - identify where proof-of-human logic is useful
• classify workflow steps by human-trust sensitivity
• determine where anonymous access is acceptable vs where stronger verification is needed
• reduce approval, lead, or offer workflows being distorted by bots or fake actors
• design “human required” checkpoints for digital systems

Best Use Cases

• - filtering fake or low-trust inbound lead submissions
• deciding which proposal approvals should require stronger human confirmation
• gating voting, claiming, or reward flows
• anti-bot logic for creator or platform campaigns
• deciding where proof-of-human is commercially worth the friction
• designing trust layers for identity-sensitive products

What to Provide

Useful input includes:

• - the workflow being protected
• what action the user wants to secure
• what the main abuse risk is
• whether the risk is bots, duplicate identities, fake leads, or low-trust engagement
• what level of friction is acceptable
• what commercial or operational downside exists if fake actors get through

Standard Output Format

WORLDCOIN ASSESSMENT
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Workflow: [What is being protected]
Main Risk: [Bot / fake human / duplicate / low-trust action]

HUMAN-TRUST SENSITIVITY
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Level: [Low / Medium / High / Critical]

WHY IT MATTERS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

• - [Why stronger human verification may matter here]
• [What happens if fake actors get through]
• [What business or trust damage follows]

VERIFICATION THRESHOLD
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
Recommended level:

• - [Open access]
• [Soft human check]
• [Strong human-required gate]
• [Escalate to formal identity / compliance process]

TRADEOFFS
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━
⚠️ [Added friction]
⚠️ [Drop in conversion]
⚠️ [False negatives / accessibility concern]
⚠️ [Operational complexity]

RECOMMENDED NEXT STEP
━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

• - [What checkpoint or policy to add next]

Human Verification Principles

• - not every workflow needs maximum identity friction
• stronger proof should be used where fake participation meaningfully distorts outcomes
• friction should match risk
• proof-of-human logic is different from legal identity logic
• commercial trust decisions should separate low-stakes participation from high-stakes approval
• never claim certainty where only probability exists

Human Proxy Lens

Think of this skill as a human proxy filter.

Its job is not to verify people directly.
Its job is to answer:

• - Where does this workflow break if non-human or duplicate actors get through?
• Where is “good enough” trust sufficient?
• Where is stronger proof of humanness worth the friction?

Execution Protocol (for AI agents)

When user asks about verification or human-trust workflow design, follow this sequence:

Step 1: Parse the workflow

• - what the user is trying to protect
• who is interacting
• what action is being taken
• what abuse or fraud risk exists
• what trust level the workflow really needs

Step 2: Classify risk

• - bot volume
• duplicate participation
• fake lead quality
• false approvals
• reward abuse
• synthetic engagement distortion

Step 3: Assess sensitivity

• - low stakes
• medium stakes
• high stakes
• critical trust

Step 4: Recommend trust layer

• - open access
• soft gating
• stronger human verification gate
• escalate to formal identity / compliance process

Step 5: Show tradeoffs

• - user friction
• conversion impact
• operational burden
• trust benefit

Step 6: Guardrails

• - say so clearly
• do not pretend proof-of-human equals legal identity
• recommend specialist or regulated review

Activation Rules (for AI agents)

Use this skill when the user asks about:

• - proof of human
• anti-bot workflow design
• fake lead filtering
• identity-sensitive approvals
• real-human gating
• trust layers for digital actions
• duplicate participation risk
• synthetic engagement prevention

Do NOT use this skill when:

• - user needs actual biometric verification
• user needs direct World ID integration steps
• user needs KYC / AML / legal identity review
• user wants technical API implementation details that are not provided

If context is ambiguous

Works Well With

• - @dpetcr/proposal when approvals should only count after stronger human trust
• INLINECODE1 when fake or low-trust inbound leads need filtering
• INLINECODE2 when rewards or monetization flows are vulnerable to fake participation

Boundaries

This skill supports decision design for proof-of-human-style workflow logic.

It does not replace:

• - biometric verification
• legal identity verification
• KYC / AML checks
• privacy review
• regulated compliance decisions

Use outputs as workflow design guidance, not as formal identity certification.