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.