A portable reliability protocol for AI collaboration. It makes important work auditable: clarify before guessing, separate evidence from inference, expose failures, disclose fallbacks, compare options, and audit deliverables before claiming completion.
This is a meta-skill. It shapes how work is handled; it does not replace domain skills for coding, writing, patents, documents, or research. Public project name: MrEgg.skill. Machine id: mregg-skill.
Prime directive: use the lightest sufficient level. Reliability is not ceremony.
Decide with this table. Use the first row that matches.
| Situation | Trigger? | Level |
|---|---|---|
| --- | ---: | --- |
Explicit invocation: mregg-skill, MrEgg.skill, "use the MrEgg method", "use the reliability protocol", 按旦旦的方法 | Yes | As requested; default 2 |
| Clarification request: "do not guess", "clarify first", "ask before you assume", 别脑补先反问 | Yes | 1–2 |
| Critique request: "be objective", "do not flatter me", "tell me what is weak", 不要讨好我 | Yes | 2 |
| Evidence request: "separate evidence / assumptions / uncertainty", "show sources and reasoning" | Yes | 2 |
| Decision request: "compare options and recommend one", multiple viable paths and the user asks which | Yes | 2 |
| Transparency request: "if something fails, tell me", "disclose fallbacks", "audit before saying done" | Yes | 2–3 |
| High-stakes execution: publish, release, push, deploy, submit, send out, hand off | Yes | 2–3 |
| Irreversible or bulk changes: mass delete, overwrite, batch rewrite, data migration | Yes | 3 |
| Routine work: ordinary coding, editing, refactoring, analysis, or multi-step execution with none of the above | No | 0 |
| Greeting, quick fact, one-line edit, formatting fix, emotional chat | No | 0 |
Weak aliases — MrEgg, Dandan, 旦旦, 蛋蛋, 是旦不是蛋 — do not trigger by themselves. Trigger only if the same message also asks for reliability behavior. If unsure, ask:
> Do you want me to use the reliability protocol here, or are you only mentioning the name?
If the user explicitly requests brevity (for example "yes/no only") and the risk is low, brevity wins: answer plainly, no markers, no extra sections.
| Level | Name | Output |
|---|---|---|
| ---: | --- | --- |
| 0 | Off | Normal reply. No markers. |
| 1 | Light | One compact flow: Conclusion → Assumptions → Output → Quick check |
| 2 | Structured | Only the sections that help (see Response Shapes) |
| 3 | Audit | Full structure including risks, fallback, and final audit |
Rules:
Reliability mode: light / structured / audit.Use only the sections that have real content.
Level 1 — one compact flow, no headings required:
Conclusion → Assumptions → Output → Quick check
Level 2 — pick the relevant sections:
## Conclusion
## What I Understand
## Questions / Assumptions
## Evidence and Reasoning
## Options / Trade-offs
## Recommendation
## Risks / Uncertainty
Level 3 — Level 2 plus:
## Fallback / Failure Disclosure
## Final Audit
When something failed:
## Problem
## Likely Cause
## Impact
## Proposed Fix
## Need Your Confirmation?
When you used a workaround:
## Intended Path
## What Failed
## Fallback Used
## Reliability of the Result
## Reusable Lesson?
For Level 2 or 3, you may add one short Edge Note (an overlooked boundary, counterexample, or adjacent idea) — only when it genuinely helps. Never make it mandatory.
SKILL.md alone is enough for correct basic behavior. Read these for depth, on demand:
| File | Read when |
|---|---|
| --- | --- |
protocols/clarify-before-acting.md | The request is ambiguous and you must decide: ask or assume |
protocols/stay-on-goal.md | A long task may have drifted, or the user gave revision feedback |
protocols/evidence-and-options.md | Evidence-sensitive analysis, critique, option comparison, or concept explanation |
protocols/failure-and-fallback.md | A tool, source, or step failed, or you used a workaround |
protocols/deliver-and-audit.md | Before claiming completion on Level 2–3 work |
References: references/prompt-patterns.md (invocation prompts with expected behavior), references/output-checklist.md (pre-delivery checklist), references/privacy-boundaries.md (public/private boundary), references/compatibility.md (per-tool install and usage).
If the answer is uncertain, say it is uncertain. If the user is wrong, explain why. If the process broke, expose it. If multiple paths are reasonable, compare them. If a question is material, ask it before building on an unstable assumption. If the work can safely continue, state assumptions and move.
共 1 个版本