aibot88 test-skill
A. Structural Problem It Solves
Without this skill, there is no structured process for handling the described governance function. This leads to informal authority and untracked decisions. The skill ensures traceability, legitimacy, and structural clarity for all participants.
B. Domain Scope
This skill applies to any domain where the described governance function is needed. It covers all agreement types and all participant roles within the ecosystem. The scope includes both intra-circle and cross-circle applications.
C. Trigger Conditions
The skill is triggered when a participant identifies a need for the described function. Additional triggers include scheduled review dates and threshold events. Emergency triggers follow the provisional emergency expediting rules.
D. Required Inputs
The required inputs include the proposer's identity and their authority scope. The affected parties and domain must be clearly identified. A rationale for the action must be provided along with the relevant documentation.
E. Step-by-Step Process
Step 1: The proposer identifies the need and gathers initial documentation. Step 2: A synergy check verifies there are no conflicts with existing agreements. Step 3: The proposal is routed to the appropriate ACT decision level. Step 4: The full ACT cycle (Advice, Consent, Test) is followed as appropriate. Step 5: The output artifact is produced and registered.
F. Output Artifact
The output is a versioned document with a unique identifier. The document includes full text, ratification record, and review date. It is registered in the agreement registry upon completion.
G. Authority Boundary Check
No individual can take unilateral action outside their defined domain. Circle-internal actions require circle consent; cross-circle actions require broader consent. Ecosystem-level actions require OSC consensus. Authority scopes are stated explicitly.
H. Capture Resistance Check
Capital capture is addressed by ensuring funding conditions do not bypass the ACT process. Charismatic capture is addressed by structurally protecting objectors in the consent phase. Emergency capture is addressed by maintaining consent requirements even under compressed timelines. Informal capture is prevented by requiring formal registration of all outcomes.
I. Failure Containment Logic
If consent fails, the proposal returns to the advice phase with identified objections. If quorum is not met, the timeline is extended without lowering the threshold. If the process stalls for 30 days, an automatic reminder is sent. Ambiguous outcomes require a mandatory clarification round.
J. Expiry / Review Condition
All outputs have a default review date based on their type. Missed reviews trigger an escalation notice, not automatic invalidation. Review intervals are configurable during creation but have mandatory minimums.
K. Exit Compatibility Check
When a participant exits, their obligations cease except for stewarded asset return. A 30-day wind-down period applies to in-progress commitments. The participant retains rights to their original works. Agreements they authored remain valid after their departure.
L. Cross-Unit Interoperability Impact
Actions in one ETHOS that affect another trigger cross-unit notification. The affected ETHOS must consent through their own ACT process. Cross-ETHOS outcomes are registered in both units' registries. Federation with other NEOS ecosystems uses inter-unit coordination (Layer V).
OmniOne Walkthrough
A TH member named Amara identifies a need for the described governance function within the SHUR Bali community. Amara follows the step-by-step process, starting with a synergy check against the agreement registry. During the advice phase, feedback is gathered from all 12 affected SHUR residents over a 7-day window. One AE member who occasionally uses the affected space is consulted as an impacted party. The consent phase proceeds with 10 of 12 participants (meeting the 2/3 quorum), resulting in consent after one integration round. The output artifact is registered as a new entry in the agreement registry with a one-year review date.
Stress-Test Results
1. Capital Influx
A donor offers $500K contingent on a specific outcome that favors their interests. The skill's authority boundary check prevents any individual from bypassing the ACT process regardless of financial contribution. The proposal goes through the full advice and consent phases where affected parties evaluate the terms on their merits. The capture resistance check flags the funding condition as a potential capture risk. The facilitator ensures all participants are aware of the external pressure. The consent phase proceeds without modification to the threshold or process. The outcome is determined by the affected parties' reasoned evaluation, not by the donor's financial leverage.
2. Emergency Crisis
A natural disaster hits the SHUR community requiring immediate action within 24 hours. Three circle members jointly declare an emergency, invoking the provisional emergency expediting rules. The advice window is compressed to 24 hours and the consent quorum cannot drop below 50% of affected parties. The process still requires a formal consent round even at maximum compression. Any decisions made under emergency expediting are automatically flagged for post-emergency review. The auto-revert window is set to a maximum of 30 days. The facilitator documents all compressed timelines for later verification.
3. Leadership Charisma Capture
A charismatic OmniOne leader attempts to push an outcome through by framing objections as obstructionism. The consent phase structurally protects objectors by requiring that all objections be formally recorded and addressed through integration rounds. The facilitator's role is limited to process stewardship and they cannot override objections or declare false consent. Social pressure to withdraw valid objections is itself flagged as a capture risk. The integration rounds require the proposer to engage substantively with each objection. If the leader attempts to skip integration rounds by claiming urgency, the emergency rules still require at least one integration round.
4. High Conflict / Polarization
Two factions within OmniOne want mutually exclusive outcomes. The coaching escalation at GAIA Level 4 brings in a neutral coach who maps the proposal against collective, community, and private domains. The coach facilitates finding a third solution that addresses both factions' core concerns. The Doing Both Solution is considered as an explicit resolution option. If coaching fails, the proposal escalates to Level 5 (Alignment Sense Making) for policy-level review. The process ensures that polarization is addressed through structural means rather than force of personality.
5. Large-Scale Replication
OmniOne grows from 50 to 5,000 members across multiple ETHOS. The skill scales through domain-scoped action, meaning not all 5,000 members participate in every process. Local actions stay within their circle's domain and only ecosystem-level actions involve the full OSC. The agreement registry handles scale through domain-based filtering and query capabilities. The synergy check becomes more important at scale to prevent duplication. Facilitation training scales through a train-the-trainer model within each circle.
6. External Legal Pressure
A government requires OmniOne to implement regulations that contradict NEOS principles. The external mandate does not automatically become an ecosystem agreement. A proposal can be submitted to address the legal requirement, but it goes through the full ACT process. Members may individually comply with local law without making it an ecosystem-wide agreement. The UAF's sovereignty principle means the ecosystem evaluates external pressure on its own terms. The legal compliance clause takes precedence for the specific jurisdiction without suspending the principle globally.
7. Sudden Exit of 30% of Participants
Nearly a third of OmniOne members leave following a major disagreement. Existing outcomes remain valid as they were legitimately produced. An automatic review is triggered for any outcome where departed members were key parties. Quorum thresholds adapt to the current participant count rather than the original count. Outcomes that lose all affected parties enter automatic review. The agreement registry flags entries associated with departed members for stewardship transition. New participants joining after the exodus inherit the existing agreement structure through the standard onboarding process.