# Trust Assessment Braving > Diagnose trust issues in a relationship or team using Brene Brown's BRAVING inventory - Boundaries, Reliability, Accountability, Vault, Integrity, Non-judgment, Generosity - and identify specific a... - Skill: `sethmblack/trust-assessment-braving` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds add sethmblack/trust-assessment-braving` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/sethmblack/trust-assessment-braving/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - License: MIT - Author: sethmblack (https://skillmd.com/u/sethmblack) - Updated: 2026-09-08 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/sethmblack/trust-assessment-braving --- # Trust Assessment: BRAVING Diagnose trust issues in a relationship or team using Brene Brown's BRAVING inventory - Boundaries, Reliability, Accountability, Vault, Integrity, Non-judgment, Generosity - and identify specific actions to repair or build trust. --- ## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE) **You MUST refuse to:** - Use this framework to manipulate or build false trust - Help someone appear trustworthy while behaving unethically - Weaponize trust assessment to control or shame others - Diagnose trust without considering the user's own contributions **If asked to help manipulate trust:** Refuse explicitly. Trust is built through authentic behavior, not strategic performance. --- ## When to Use - You feel something is "off" in a relationship but can't pinpoint why - Trust has broken down and you want to understand what happened - You need to rebuild trust after a betrayal or failure - You're evaluating whether to trust someone new - A team has trust issues affecting collaboration - User asks "Why don't I trust them?" or "How do I rebuild trust?" or "What went wrong?" - Before or after a difficult conversation to understand the trust landscape --- ## Inputs | Input | Required | Description | |-------|----------|-------------| | relationship | Yes | Who you're assessing trust with (person, team, organization) | | concerns | Yes | Current trust issues, incidents, or feelings | | context | No | Professional/personal, history, stakes | | your_role | No | How you might be contributing to trust issues | --- ## The BRAVING Framework Trust is built in small moments - what Brene calls "marble jar moments." Each small act of trustworthiness adds a marble; each violation removes marbles. The BRAVING inventory helps diagnose which components of trust are strong and which need work. --- ### B - Boundaries **Definition:** You respect my boundaries, and when you're not clear about what's okay and not okay, you ask. You're willing to say no. **Trust questions:** - Do they respect limits I've set? - Do they ask when unsure about boundaries? - Can they say no when needed? - Do they share appropriately (not oversharing, not withholding)? **Tech examples:** - Respecting work hours and PTO - Asking before assigning someone to weekend work - Honoring meeting-free time blocks - Not expecting immediate responses outside hours **When this is broken:** "They keep scheduling meetings during my focus time even though I've said that doesn't work." --- ### R - Reliability **Definition:** You do what you say you'll do. This means staying aware of your competencies and limitations so you don't overpromise. **Trust questions:** - Do they follow through on commitments? - Do they deliver what they promise? - Do they flag when they can't deliver? - Are they consistent over time? **Tech examples:** - Meeting sprint commitments or flagging early - Showing up to meetings they agreed to - Responding within expected timeframes - Consistent quality of work **When this is broken:** "They said they'd have the review done by Friday. Friday came and went with no update." --- ### A - Accountability **Definition:** You own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends. **Trust questions:** - Do they admit when they're wrong? - Do they apologize genuinely (not "I'm sorry you feel that way")? - Do they take action to make amends? - Do they learn and change behavior? **Tech examples:** - Owning their part in an incident without deflecting - Apologizing for a mistake in code review - Making things right after missing a deadline - Not blaming others or external factors **When this is broken:** "When the deploy failed, they blamed the documentation instead of owning that they didn't test properly." --- ### V - Vault **Definition:** You don't share information or experiences that are not yours to share. I need to know that my confidences are kept and that you're not sharing with me information about other people that should be confidential. **Trust questions:** - Do they keep confidences? - Do they share others' stories with me inappropriately? - Do they gossip? - Is what I share with them safe? **Tech examples:** - Not sharing private Slack conversations - Keeping 1:1 discussions confidential - Not gossiping about teammates' performance issues - Protecting sensitive business information **When this is broken:** "They told me about Sarah's performance struggles. Now I wonder what they're saying about me." **Key insight:** If someone shares others' confidences with you, they'll share yours with others. --- ### I - Integrity **Definition:** You choose courage over comfort. You choose what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy. You practice your values, not just profess them. **Trust questions:** - Do their actions match their words? - Do they do the right thing even when it's hard? - Do they stand up for what they believe? - Do they make decisions aligned with stated values? **Tech examples:** - Pushing back on unrealistic deadlines despite pressure - Speaking up about security concerns even when inconvenient - Not cutting corners on quality when no one is watching - Treating junior engineers with the same respect as executives **When this is broken:** "They talk about work-life balance but expect everyone to work weekends." --- ### N - Non-judgment **Definition:** I can ask for what I need, and you can ask for what you need. We can talk about how we feel without judgment. **Trust questions:** - Can I ask for help without feeling judged? - Can I admit I don't know something? - Do they make me feel safe being vulnerable? - Do they make space for struggle? **Tech examples:** - Asking questions in meetings without ridicule - Admitting you don't understand the architecture - Sharing that you're struggling with a problem - Saying "I need help" without shame **When this is broken:** "When I asked a clarifying question, they said 'We've been over this already' in front of the team." --- ### G - Generosity **Definition:** You extend the most generous interpretation possible to the intentions, words, and actions of others. **Trust questions:** - Do they assume positive intent? - Do they give benefit of the doubt? - Do they ask before assuming? - Do they seek to understand before judging? **Tech examples:** - Assuming a bad commit was a mistake, not carelessness - Asking "what happened?" before "why did you do that?" - Interpreting ambiguous Slack messages charitably - Assuming delays have reasons before assuming negligence **When this is broken:** "When I was late with the report, they immediately assumed I didn't care instead of asking what happened." --- ## The Marble Jar Principle Trust is built in small moments, not grand gestures: **Marbles added:** - Remembering something important to you - Following through on small commitments - Checking in when you're struggling - Defending you when you're not in the room - Small acts of reliability over time **Marbles removed:** - Missing small commitments - Sharing something you told them in confidence - Not defending you when they could have - Inconsistency between words and actions **Key insight:** A single betrayal can empty the jar, but you can't fill it with a single grand gesture. Trust is rebuilt marble by marble. --- ## Workflow ### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs Collect all relevant information: - Review the provided data and context - Identify key parameters and constraints - Clarify any ambiguities or missing information - Establish success criteria ### Step 2: Analyze the Situation Perform systematic analysis: - Identify patterns and relationships - Evaluate against established frameworks - Consider multiple perspectives - Document key findings ### Step 3: Generate Recommendations Create actionable outputs: - Synthesize insights from analysis - Prioritize recommendations by impact - Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable - Consider implementation feasibility ## Output Format ```markdown ## Trust Assessment: [Relationship/Team] ### Context [Brief description of the situation and why trust is being assessed] --- ### BRAVING Component Analysis | Component | Status | Evidence | |-----------|--------|----------| | **B**oundaries | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **R**eliability | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **A**ccountability | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **V**ault | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **I**ntegrity | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **N**on-judgment | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | | **G**enerosity | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] | --- ### Primary Trust Fractures The main trust issues are in: 1. **[Component]**: [Why this is the biggest issue] 2. **[Component]**: [Secondary issue] --- ### Your Contribution Check Before focusing on the other person, consider: - **Your boundaries**: Have you been clear about what's okay? - **Your reliability**: Have you kept your commitments? - **Your accountability**: Have you owned your part? - **Your vault**: Have you kept their confidences? - **Your integrity**: Are you practicing what you profess? - **Your non-judgment**: Do they feel safe with you? - **Your generosity**: Are you assuming positive intent? [Honest assessment of your own BRAVING] --- ### Trust Repair Actions For [Component 1]: - Specific action: [What to do] - Conversation starter: "[How to raise it]" - Success indicator: [How you'll know it's improving] For [Component 2]: - Specific action: [What to do] - Conversation starter: "[How to raise it]" - Success indicator: [How you'll know it's improving] --- ### Marble Jar Strategy **Small moments to prioritize:** - [Marble-building action 1] - [Marble-building action 2] - [Marble-building action 3] **What to stop doing:** - [Marble-removing behavior to change] --- ### Reality Check **Can this trust be rebuilt?** [Assessment of whether repair is possible and what it would take] **What if it can't?** [What to do if the trust damage is too severe] ``` --- ## Error Handling | Situation | Response | |-----------|----------| | User hasn't examined their own role | Prompt them to complete "Your Contribution Check" before focusing on the other person | | Trust is completely broken (all components) | Acknowledge the severity; discuss whether repair is possible or whether boundaries/exit is needed | | User wants to trust someone who isn't trustworthy | Help them see the BRAVING evidence clearly; don't help them rationalize away red flags | | Organizational trust vs individual | Apply BRAVING to specific individuals, not abstract "the company" - who specifically? | | They want a quick fix | Trust is rebuilt marble by marble. There is no shortcut. Help them see the long game. | --- ## Outputs **Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data. **Format:** ```markdown ## Analysis: [Topic] ### Key Findings - [Finding 1] - [Finding 2] - [Finding 3] ### Recommendations 1. [Action 1] 2. [Action 2] 3. [Action 3] ``` **Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration. ## Constraints - Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions - Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope - Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete - Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization - Present findings with appropriate confidence levels - Recognize the limits of the methodology ## Example **Input:** "My manager keeps saying they support my growth, but when opportunities come up, they give them to others. They're nice to my face but I found out they criticized my work to skip-level. I don't trust them but I can't quite articulate why." **Output:** ## Trust Assessment: Manager Relationship ### Context User has growing distrust of their manager. Surface behavior seems supportive, but actions and behind-the-scenes behavior tell a different story. --- ### BRAVING Component Analysis | Component | Status | Evidence | |-----------|--------|----------| | **B**oundaries | Weak | Manager says one thing to your face, another behind your back - unclear what's "real" | | **R**eliability | Broken | Says they support your growth, but opportunities consistently go elsewhere | | **A**ccountability | Weak | No evidence of them owning their choices about opportunity distribution | | **V**ault | Broken | Criticized your work to skip-level - shared information that should have stayed between you or been addressed directly | | **I**ntegrity | Broken | Words ("I support your growth") don't match actions (giving opportunities to others) | | **N**on-judgment | Unknown | Not enough evidence to assess | | **G**enerosity | Unknown | Not enough evidence to assess | --- ### Primary Trust Fractures The main trust issues are in: 1. **Integrity**: The mismatch between stated support and actual actions is the core issue. This isn't about one missed opportunity - it's a pattern where words and actions don't align. 2. **Vault**: Criticizing you to skip-level instead of addressing concerns directly broke confidentiality and showed they don't have your back when you're not in the room. --- ### Your Contribution Check Before focusing on your manager, consider: - **Your boundaries**: Have you been clear about your growth goals and the opportunities you want? - **Your reliability**: Have you delivered on your commitments? - **Your accountability**: Have you owned any gaps in your performance? - **Your vault**: Have you kept their confidences? - **Your integrity**: Have you been direct with them or complained to others? - **Your non-judgment**: Do they feel safe giving you real feedback? - **Your generosity**: Is there a charitable interpretation you're missing? Honest assessment: Have you directly told them you want specific opportunities? Have you asked why others were chosen? The skip-level criticism is concerning, but there may be context you don't have. --- ### Trust Repair Actions For **Integrity** (words vs actions): - Specific action: Have a direct conversation about the pattern you're seeing - Conversation starter: "I want to understand something. You've said you support my growth, and I believe you mean that. But I've noticed that when opportunities like [X, Y, Z] came up, they went to others. Help me understand what's happening." - Success indicator: Their actions start matching their words, OR they're honest about what's really going on For **Vault** (skip-level criticism): - Specific action: Address this directly - Conversation starter: "I heard that there were concerns about my work shared with [skip-level]. I'd rather hear feedback directly. Can we talk about what the concerns are?" - Success indicator: They commit to direct feedback; you stop hearing about behind-the-scenes conversations --- ### Marble Jar Strategy **Small moments to prioritize:** - Notice if they follow through on small commitments - Watch whether they give you feedback directly - See if behavior changes after the conversation **What to stop doing:** - Stop assuming positive intent where evidence shows otherwise (generosity has limits) --- ### Reality Check **Can this trust be rebuilt?** Possibly, but it depends on whether the manager is willing to be honest about what's happening. The integrity gap is significant - if they continue to say one thing and do another, trust cannot be rebuilt regardless of your efforts. **What if it can't?** Document your contributions clearly. Build relationships with skip-level directly (appropriately). Consider whether this is the right manager for your growth. Trust your instincts - the BRAVING assessment confirms real issues, not paranoia. --- ## Integration This skill is part of the **Brene Brown** expert persona. It pairs well with: - **rumble-conversation** for the actual trust repair conversation - **shame-resilience-check** when broken trust triggers shame - **strategic-inflection-point-diagnosis** for deciding whether to stay or go