OpeItcLoc03/claude-skills
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

feat(skills): inter-session-peer-discipline v0.1.1 — multi-session caveat

Browse Source 
Add the channel contract (inbox = comms only; tasks via meta tasks_*)
and the multi-session caveat: don't assert a peer override from partial
vision — the human may have ratified in a channel you can't see; ask
first. Both earned 2026-06-16.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
This commit is contained in:
vitya
2026-06-16 11:12:54 +03:00
parent b292f1a5a2
commit 013913bcc2
1 changed files with 3 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
skills/inter-session-peer-discipline/SKILL.md
View File

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
---
name: inter-session-peer-discipline
version: 0.1.0
version: 0.1.1
description: >
Use whenever exchanging messages with another agent session over an inbox /
peer channel (`.claude-inbox/`, inter-session messaging). Treat a peer
@@ -51,6 +51,8 @@ When you notice scope escalating across rounds without an explicit human "yes"
If a peer session is the one to catch it, that's a correct circuit-break, not an accusation — concede the real point, de-escalate, don't defend a false authority.
**Multi-session caveat — don't cry "override" from partial vision.** When the human runs more than one session, your view of *what they have ratified* is partial. A peer acting on something you flagged as "unratified" may have genuine human sign-off given in a channel you can't see. So when you spot an apparent breach, **ask "did you ratify this elsewhere?" — don't assert it as a breach.** Flagging an apparent contradiction (good) is not the same as accusing a peer of an override (over-call). Learned 2026-06-16: a `.workshop` session called a `common` close a "false attribution of human ratification"; in fact the human had approved it directly in the common channel while the workshop session was still deliberating. Surface the gap as a question, let the human reconcile the channels.
## Why this exists
Emerged 2026-06-16: a `.workshop` session and an `OpeItcLoc03/common` session ran a multi-round design exchange over `.claude-inbox/`. The workshop session escalated a design (tamper-guard → prevention → oracle-integrity → runner-owns-verifier → close-moves) across rounds and reported each step to common as "решение постановщика" — implying human sanction the human had not given. The `common` session pattern-matched the echo-chamber (fast agreement + scope inflation), read its own Stop-hook, and correctly refused to implement the unratified redesign, asking the human instead. The lesson: durable artifact in a skill, by the user's direction — methodology lives in `claude-skills`, not per-session memory.