Compare commits

..
Author SHA1 Message Date
Matt PocockandClaude Opus 4.8 af6d6922c3 Drop Negative Space; keep Negation only
Negative Space read as clever but not actionable — "notice your
silences" is fuzzy legwork the agent can't reliably act on. Negation
stays: a checkable authoring failure with a positive-instruction cure.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-06 13:57:05 +01:00
Matt PocockandClaude Opus 4.8 30afefecc9 changeset for Negation and Negative Space failure modes
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-06 13:56:16 +01:00
Matt PocockandClaude Opus 4.8 0847bb31bc writing-great-skills: add Negation and Negative Space failure modes
Two adjacent Steering failure modes about how language you think of as
"off" still steers:

- Negation — a prohibition names the forbidden behaviour and makes it
  more available, not less (don't-think-of-an-elephant). Cure: prompt
  the positive.
- Negative Space — what you omit is delegated to the agent's priors,
  not left neutral. Cure: read a draft for what it's silent on and
  decide each omission deliberately.

Each carried as a full GLOSSARY entry plus a SKILL.md failure-mode
bullet, matching every other failure mode.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-06 13:54:46 +01:00
5 changed files with 14 additions and 7 deletions
+5
View File
@@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
---
"mattpocock-skills": minor
---
Add two adjacent Steering failure modes to **`writing-great-skills`**, both about how language you think of as "off" still steers the agent. **Negation** — the _elephant_ — is steering by prohibition: naming what _not_ to do drags the forbidden behaviour into context and makes it _more_ available, not less (_don't think of an elephant_), so the cure is to prompt the **positive**. **Negative Space** — the void — is blindness to the steering done by what you leave _out_: every decision a skill declines is delegated to the agent's priors rather than left neutral, so the cure is to read a draft for its silences and decide each omission deliberately (fill it, or leave it open as a real **branch**). Kept as two entries, not one — they carry different diagnostics and different cures — each a full `GLOSSARY.md` entry plus a `SKILL.md` failure-mode bullet, matching how every other failure mode is carried.
@@ -1,5 +0,0 @@
---
"mattpocock-skills": minor
---
Sharpen how the **`to-issues`** skill records structure. The "What to build" template now adds a context pointer to where the **`/prototype`** skill's code lives, rather than inlining a snippet from it. And publishing now prefers the tracker's **native sub-issues** for parent → slice and **native blocking edges** for `Blocked by` where the tracker supports them (mechanics already live in the issue-tracker doc), keeping the `## Parent` / `## Blocked by` body sections as the fallback.
+2 -2
View File
@@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ Iterate until the user approves the breakdown.
For each approved slice, publish a new issue to the issue tracker. Use the issue body template below. These issues are considered ready for AFK agents, so publish them with the correct triage label unless instructed otherwise.
Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers. Where the tracker supports it, link each slice to its parent as a native **sub-issue** and wire each blocker as a native **blocking edge** (mechanics in the issue-tracker doc); the `## Parent` and `## Blocked by` body sections are the fallback otherwise.
Publish issues in dependency order (blockers first) so you can reference real issue identifiers in the "Blocked by" field.
<issue-template>
## Parent
@@ -65,7 +65,7 @@ A reference to the parent issue on the issue tracker (if the source was an exist
A concise description of this vertical slice. Describe the end-to-end behavior, not layer-by-layer implementation.
Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if the `/prototype` skill produced code that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), add a context pointer to where that prototype code lives rather than inlining it.
Avoid specific file paths or code snippets — they go stale fast. Exception: if a prototype produced a snippet that encodes a decision more precisely than prose can (state machine, reducer, schema, type shape), inline it here and note briefly that it came from a prototype. Trim to the decision-rich parts — not a working demo, just the important bits.
## Acceptance criteria
@@ -158,6 +158,12 @@ _Failure mode._ Ending the current step before it is genuinely done, because the
_Avoid_: premature closure, the rush, rushing, shortcutting
### Negation
_Failure mode._ Steering by prohibition — telling the agent what _not_ to do — which drags the forbidden behaviour into context and makes it _more_ available, not less. _Don't think of an elephant_, and the elephant is all there is; _never write verbose comments_, and verbosity is the pattern the agent has just read. The negation is a weak modifier the strongly-activated concept overruns, so the ban half-reads as an instruction to do the thing. Its **leading word** is the _elephant_: whatever a prohibition names into the frame. Cure: prompt the **positive** — describe the target behaviour ("write one-line comments") so the banned one is never spoken. A prohibition earns its place only as a hard guardrail on a behaviour you cannot phrase positively; even then, pair it with the positive target so attention lands on what to do.
_Avoid_: ironic rebound, don't-prompting, the pink elephant
## Pruning
Keeping a skill lean — each remedy paired with the failure it cures.
@@ -80,3 +80,4 @@ Use these to diagnose issues the user may be having with the skill.
- **Sediment** — stale layers that settle because adding feels safe and removing feels risky. The default fate of any skill without a pruning discipline.
- **Sprawl** — a skill simply too long, even when every line is live and unique. Hurts readability and maintainability and wastes tokens. The cure is the ladder: disclose **reference** behind pointers, and split by **branch** or sequence so each path carries only what it needs.
- **No-op** — a line the model already obeys by default, so you pay load to say nothing. The test: does it change behaviour versus the default? A weak leading word (_be thorough_ when the agent is already thorough-ish) is a no-op; the fix is a stronger word (_relentless_), not a different technique.
- **Negation** — steering by prohibition backfires: _don't think of an elephant_ names the elephant and makes it more available, not less. Prompt the **positive** — state the target behaviour so the banned one is never spoken; keep a prohibition only as a hard guardrail you can't phrase positively, and even then pair it with what to do instead.