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

Extract: - 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

Classify the primary concern: - bot volume - duplicate participation - fake lead quality - false approvals - reward abuse - synthetic engagement distortion

Step 3: Assess sensitivity

Determine whether the workflow is: - low stakes - medium stakes - high stakes - critical trust

Step 4: Recommend trust layer

Choose the lightest acceptable level: - open access - soft gating - stronger human verification gate - escalate to formal identity / compliance process

Step 5: Show tradeoffs

Explain: - user friction - conversion impact - operational burden - trust benefit

Step 6: Guardrails

If the user needs regulated identity, financial compliance, or formal verification: - 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

Ask: "Do you want help designing a human-verification decision layer, or do you need actual product/API integration?"

---

Works Well With

• @dpetcr/proposal when approvals should only count after stronger human trust
• @AGIstack/lead when fake or low-trust inbound leads need filtering
• @ethagent/xmoney 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.