CtrlK
BlogDocsLog inGet started
Tessl Logo

clarify

Clarify intent-expression gaps. Extracts clarified intent when what you mean differs from what you said. Type: (IntentMisarticulated, Hybrid, EXTRACT, Expression) → ClarifiedIntent. Alias: Hermeneia(ἑρμηνεία).

34

Quality

17%

Does it follow best practices?

Impact

Pending

No eval scenarios have been run

SecuritybySnyk

Passed

No known issues

Optimize this skill with Tessl

npx tessl skill review --optimize ./hermeneia/skills/clarify/SKILL.md
SKILL.md
Quality
Evals
Security

Hermeneia Protocol

Resolve intent-expression misalignment through hybrid-initiated dialogue, enabling precise articulation before action proceeds. Type: (IntentMisarticulated, Hybrid, EXTRACT, Expression) → ClarifiedIntent.

Definition

Hermeneia (ἑρμηνεία): A dialogical act of clarifying the gap between what the user intends and what they expressed, resolving misaligned intent into precise articulation through structured questioning.

── FLOW ──
E → recognize(E) → Eᵥ → detect(Eᵥ) → Gd → filter → Gₛ → Q → A → Î' → (loop until converge)

── MORPHISM ──
Expression
  → recognize(expression, trigger)     -- determine activation path from signal
  → confirm(expression)                -- verify which expression to clarify
  → detect(gaps_in_expression)         -- surface gap types with evidence
  → clarify(gap, as_options)           -- present structured clarification choices
  → integrate(answer, intent)          -- update intent model from response
  → ClarifiedIntent
requires: trigger(E) ∈ {user_signal, ai_strong ∧ confirmed}  -- Phase 0 checkpoint
deficit:  IntentMisarticulated                                -- activation precondition (Layer 1/2)
preserves: E                                                  -- read-only throughout; morphism acts on Î only
invariant: Articulation over Assumption

── TYPES ──
E  = User's expression (the prompt to clarify)
Eᵥ = Verified expression (user-confirmed binding)
Gd = AI-detected gap types ⊆ {Expression, Precision, Coherence, Background} ∪ Emergent(Eᵥ)
     -- raw detection output, presented as full taxonomy at Phase 1b
Gₛ = Effective working gap set = Gd \ (Λ.clarified ∪ Λ.excluded)
     -- target of Phase 2 iteration; mutable via user free-response override (Λ.excluded additions, Λ.emergent additions)
Q  = Clarification question (via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution))
A  = User's answer
Î  = Inferred intent (AI's model of user's goal)
Î' = Updated intent after clarification
ClarifiedIntent = Î' where |remaining| = 0 ∨ cycle(G) ∨ stall(Δ, 2) ∨ user_esc
T  = Trigger source ∈ {user_signal, ai_strong, ai_soft}
suggest_only = ai_soft terminal: passive suggestion without activation (no Constitution interaction; Λ.active = false)

── E-BINDING ──
bind(E) = explicit_arg ∪ colocated_expr ∪ prev_user_turn ∪ ai_identified_expr
Priority: explicit_arg > colocated_expr > prev_user_turn > ai_identified_expr

/clarify "text"                → E = "text"
"request... clarify"           → E = text before trigger
/clarify (alone)               → E = previous user message
AI-detected trigger             → E = expression AI identified as ambiguous

Edge cases:
- Interrupt: E = original request of interrupted task
- Queued:    E = previous message at queue time (fixed)
- Re-invoke: Show prior clarification, confirm or restart

── PHASE TRANSITIONS ──
Phase 0:  E → recognize(E) → T                           -- trigger recognition
          T = user_signal → Phase 1a                      -- user-initiated path
          T = ai_strong   → Qc(confirm) → Stop → {yes: Phase 1a | no: immune(E)}  -- AI-detected confirm [Tool]
          T = ai_soft     → suggest_only                  -- suggest, do not activate
Phase 1a: E → Qc(E) → Stop → Eᵥ                          -- E confirmation [Tool]
Phase 1b: Eᵥ → detect(Eᵥ) → Gd → TextPresent(extension) → filter(Gd, Λ) → Gₛ  -- gap detection + full taxonomy presentation [Tool]
Phase 2:  Gₛ → Qs(Gₛ) → Stop → A                         -- clarification [Tool]
Phase 3:  A → integrate(A, Î) → Î'                       -- intent update (sense)

── LOOP ──
After Phase 3: return to Phase 1b for newly surfaced gaps.
On re-entry, detect(Eᵥ) re-analyzes the expression in the context of prior clarifications; gap types in (Λ.clarified ∪ Λ.excluded) are filtered from Gd → Gₛ (type-level filtering ensures convergence; new instances of a clarified or user-excluded type are excluded).
Re-entry is pure Extension (auto-proceed); taxonomy revision remains reachable via Phase 2 free response (adds to Λ.excluded or Λ.emergent, triggering re-detection).
If |Gₛ| = 0 after filtering (all detected types clarified/excluded, or empty detection): skip Phase 2, evaluate convergence (|remaining| = 0).
Continue until converge: |remaining| = 0, cycle detected, or user exits.
Mode remains active until convergence.
Convergence evidence: At |remaining| = 0, present transformation trace — for each g ∈ Λ.clarified, show (IntentMisarticulated(g) → resolution(g)) from Λ.history. Convergence is demonstrated, not asserted.

── TOOL GROUNDING ──
-- Realization: Constitution → TextPresent+Stop; Extension → TextPresent+Proceed
Phase 0 Qc   (constitution)   → present (AI-detected activation confirmation; fires only on ai_strong path; user_signal path skips Phase 0; immune(E) on decline)
Phase 1a E_from_arg (extension) → TextPresent+Proceed (when explicit_arg(E) via /clarify "text"; proceed with bound E; Phase 2 Qs free-response override available downstream)
Phase 1a Qc  (constitution)   → present (E confirmation; when no explicit_arg)
Phase 1b detect (sense)  → Internal analysis (gap detection from Eᵥ)
Phase 1b present (extension) → TextPresent+Proceed (full taxonomy with evidence + falsification + emergent probe; option-set relay test — Proceed dominates under user-invoked or user-confirmed activation; flows into Phase 2)
Phase 2 Qs   (constitution)   → present (clarification options; user incorporates intent into clarification; free response overrides taxonomy — emergent add, type exclude, redirect; override capability must be disclosed at the Constitution interaction as part of user authority disclosure; Esc key → loop termination at LOOP level, not an Answer)
suggest_only (sense)   → no tool call (passive suggestion; Λ.active = false)
integrate    (track)   → Internal state update (no external tool)
converge     (extension)   → TextPresent+Proceed (convergence evidence trace; proceed with clarified expression)

── MODE STATE ──
Λ = { phase: Phase, trigger: T, E: Expression, Eᵥ: Expression, detected: Set(Gap), gaps: Set(Gap),
      clarified: Set(Gap), excluded: Set(GapType), emergent: Set(Gap), remaining: Set(Gap),
      immune: Set(Expression), history: List<(E, Gₛ, A)>, active: Bool }
-- Invariant: gaps = clarified ∪ remaining (pairwise disjoint); excluded and emergent are user-override state accumulated from Phase 2 free response

── COMPOSITION ──
*: product — (D₁ × D₂) → (R₁ × R₂). graph.json edges preserved. Dimension resolution emergent via session context.

Core Principle

Articulation over Assumption: AI helps user express what they already know but struggle to articulate.

Distinction from Other Protocols

ProtocolInitiatorDeficit → ResolutionFocus
ProthesisAI-guidedFrameworkAbsent → FramedInquiryPerspective selection
SyneidesisAI-guidedGapUnnoticed → AuditedDecisionDecision-point gaps
HermeneiaHybridIntentMisarticulated → ClarifiedIntentExpression clarification
TelosAI-guidedGoalIndeterminate → DefinedEndStateGoal co-construction
HorismosAI-guidedBoundaryUndefined → DefinedBoundaryEpistemic boundary definition
AitesisAI-guidedContextInsufficient → InformedExecutionContext sufficiency sensing
AnalogiaAI-guidedMappingUncertain → ValidatedMappingAbstract-concrete mapping validation
PeriagogeAI-guidedAbstractionInProcess → CrystallizedAbstractionIn-process abstraction crystallization
ProsocheUser-initiatedExecutionBlind → SituatedExecutionRisk-assessed execution
EpharmogeAI-guidedApplicationDecontextualized → ContextualizedExecutionPost-execution applicability
AnamnesisAI-guidedRecallAmbiguous → RecalledContextVague recall recognition
KatalepsisUser-initiatedResultUngrasped → VerifiedUnderstandingComprehension verification

Key differences: User recognizes intent-expression misalignment (user signal), or AI detects ambiguous expression (AI-detected trigger, requires user confirmation). Both paths help articulate what the user partially knows. Boundary with Aitesis: if the ambiguity is in the user's expression of intent (how it was said), use Hermeneia; if the AI lacks factual execution context (what information the system needs), use Aitesis.

Mode Activation

Activation

Command invocation, trigger phrase, or AI-detected expression ambiguity activates mode until clarification completes. AI-detected activation requires user confirmation before proceeding to Phase 1a.

Activation layers:

  • Layer 1 (User-invocable): /clarify slash command or description-matching input. Always available.
  • Layer 2 (Hybrid): User trigger signals proceed directly; AI-detected expression ambiguity (ai_strong) requires user confirmation; minor ambiguity (ai_soft) suggests only.

Clarification complete = one of: |remaining| = 0 (no gaps remain), cycle(G) (already clarified), or Δ = 0 for 2 rounds (progress stall with user consent to proceed).

Priority

<system-reminder> When Hermeneia is active:

Supersedes: Direct action patterns in loaded instructions (Clarification must complete before any tool execution or code changes)

Retained: Safety boundaries, tool restrictions, user explicit instructions

Action: At Phase 2, present clarification options via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution). </system-reminder>

  • Hermeneia completes before other workflows begin
  • Loaded instructions resume after intent is clarified

Protocol precedence: Activation order position 1/10 (graph.json is authoritative source for information flow). Concern cluster: Planning.

Advisory relationships: Provides to Telos (precondition: clarified intent enables goal construction), Aitesis (advisory: background gaps suggest context insufficiency), Periagoge (advisory: clarified intent narrows the abstraction seed). Katalepsis is structurally last.

Clarified expression becomes input to subsequent protocols.

Triggers

User-Initiated Signals (T = user_signal):

SignalExamples
Direct request"clarify what I mean", "help me articulate"
Self-doubt"did I express this right?", "is this clear?"
Ambiguity acknowledgment"I'm not sure how to phrase this", "this might be confusing"
Meta-communication"what I'm trying to say is...", "let me rephrase"

Qualifying condition: Activate only when user's entire message is a clarification request, or when 2+ trigger signals co-occur in the same message. Do not activate on casual meta-communication embedded in a larger request.

AI-Detected Signals:

StrengthTriggerAction
Strong (ai_strong)Standalone ambiguous expression with multiple valid interpretationsConfirm via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution), then activate
Strong (ai_strong)Request referencing undefined scope or entityConfirm via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution), then activate
Strong (ai_strong)Scope-reference mismatch (expression scope ≠ referenced context)Confirm via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution), then activate
Soft (ai_soft)Minor lexical ambiguity resolvable from contextSuggest only; do not activate

Skip (user-initiated):

  • User's expression is unambiguous
  • User explicitly declines clarification
  • Expression already clarified in current session

Cross-session enrichment: Accumulated clarification patterns from Anamnesis's hypomnesis store (session recall indices written by the SessionEnd/PreCompact hook) may improve ai_strong trigger precision — known intent-expression gaps in similar contexts reduce false positive detection. In parallel, when /recollect has been invoked this session, the recalled context surfaces the user's prior terminology and phrasing patterns, improving intent extraction by grounding Iᵥ construction in recognized expression habits. This is a heuristic input that may bias detection toward previously observed patterns; constitutive judgment remains with the user.

Revision threshold: When accumulated Emergent gap detections across 3+ sessions cluster around a recognizable pattern outside the named types {Expression, Precision, Coherence, Background}, the Gap Taxonomy warrants promotion to a new named type. When accumulated classification false positives across 3+ sessions cluster around a specific named type, that type's detection boundary warrants revision or demotion to Emergent.

Skip (AI-detected):

  • User says "just do it", "proceed as-is", or equivalent
  • Session immunity: user declined AI-detected clarification for this expression already
  • Soft trigger resolved by context

Mode Deactivation

TriggerEffect
Clarification completeIntent established; proceed with clarified expression
User accepts current expressionOriginal expression deemed sufficient
User explicitly cancelsReturn to normal operation

Gap Taxonomy

TypeDetectionQuestion Form
ExpressionIncomplete articulation; missing key elements"Did you mean X or Y?"
PrecisionAmbiguous scope, quantity, or degree"How specifically: [options]?"
CoherenceInternal contradiction or tension"You mentioned X but also Y. Which takes priority?"
BackgroundMissing interpretive background needed to determine expression meaning"What background should I know to interpret this correctly? [options]"

Emergent gap detection: Named types are working hypotheses, not exhaustive categories. Detect Emergent gaps when:

  • User's difficulty spans multiple named types (e.g., expression is both imprecise and internally coherent but misaligned with unstated context)
  • User pushes back on all presented gap types ("none of these capture what's wrong")
  • The expression's ambiguity resists decomposition into the four named dimensions

Emergent gaps must satisfy morphism IntentMisarticulated → ClarifiedIntent and use adapted question forms.

Gap Priority

When multiple gaps detected:

  1. Coherence (highest): Contradictions block all interpretation
  2. Background: Missing interpretive background affects all other gaps
  3. Expression: Core articulation gaps
  4. Precision (lowest): Refinement after core is clear

Background Gap Boundary

When the Background gap type is selected, verify the gap is about interpreting the expression, not about executing the task:

  • Hermeneia Background: Missing background changes what E means (user's intent) → proceed with clarification
  • Aitesis territory: Missing background changes how to perform X (prospect) → suggest /inquire and offer to transition

Operational test: "Would knowing this change what the user means, or only how I execute it?"

Protocol

Phase 0: Trigger Recognition

Recognize trigger source and determine activation path:

User-Initiated Path (T = user_signal):

  1. Explicit request: User directly asks for clarification help
  2. Implicit signal: User expresses doubt about their own expression
  3. Meta-communication: User attempts to rephrase or explain their intent

→ Proceed directly to Phase 1a.

AI-Detected Path (T = ai_strong):

When AI detects a strong ambiguity trigger (see Triggers: AI-Detected Signals), present the detected ambiguity as text output (e.g., "I notice this expression may be ambiguous: [specific ambiguity evidence]"), then present to confirm activation:

Would you like to clarify this expression?

Options:
1. Yes, help me clarify — start Hermeneia
2. No, proceed as-is — continue without clarification

User confirmation required before proceeding to Phase 1a. If user selects option 2, mark session immunity and do not re-trigger for this expression.

T = ai_soft → suggest only; do not present via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution); do not activate.

Phase 1a: Expression Confirmation

Present to confirm which expression to clarify.

Present the bound expression E and ask user to confirm or specify:

Which expression would you like to clarify?

Options:
1. "[bound E]" — the expression I identified
2. "Specify different" — let me describe what I want to clarify

Skip condition: If E was explicitly provided via argument (/clarify "text"), proceed directly to Phase 1b.

Note (AI-detected path): If triggered via T = ai_strong, E is already identified by AI — Phase 1a confirmation verifies the AI's identification; user may still select Option 2 to redirect to a different expression.

Phase 1b: Gap Detection

Analyze Eᵥ to detect applicable gap types, present full taxonomy assessment as Extension (auto-proceed), then proceed directly to Phase 2 clarification.

Per Gap Taxonomy above. Apply priority order: Coherence → Background → Expression → Precision. Emergent gaps must satisfy morphism IntentMisarticulated → ClarifiedIntent; boundary: intent-expression gap (in-scope) vs. goal definition (→ /goal) or execution context (→ /inquire).

Present the full taxonomy assessment as text output — every named type shown with detection status, evidence, and falsification condition for undetected types:

  • Coherence ✓ detected: [specific evidence from Eᵥ]
  • Background — not currently detected: [evidence considered]. Would apply if [falsification condition].
  • Expression ✓ detected: [specific evidence from Eᵥ]
  • Precision — not currently detected: [evidence considered]. Would apply if [falsification condition].
  • Emergent: [If AI detects a potential emergent type: present as named hypothesis with evidence and boundary annotation. Otherwise: "Is there an aspect of your expression that doesn't fit the above categories?"]

Emergent gaps include boundary annotation: "This is an intent-expression gap (Hermeneia scope). Not: goal definition (→ /goal) or execution context (→ /inquire)"

  • Detected types: evidence for why the gap was identified
  • Not-currently-detected types: evidence considered + falsification condition ("would apply if [specific condition]")
  • Evidence parity: each type (detected or not) receives comparable analytical depth

Then filter Gd against (Λ.clarified ∪ Λ.excluded) to produce Gₛ, and proceed directly to Phase 2 for Gₛ in priority order (Coherence → Background → Expression → Precision). If |Gₛ| = 0 after filtering: skip Phase 2, evaluate convergence (|remaining| = 0 in LOOP).

User override via free response: Users may override the taxonomy at any Phase 2 Constitution interaction — describe an emergent gap (added to Λ.emergent), exclude a detected type (added to Λ.excluded), redirect to a different expression (re-binds E), or declare convergence. Override capability must be disclosed at Phase 2 Constitution interactions (see Phase 2 prose).

Response classification (discriminator for free-response parsing — closes the adversarial free-response pathway):

  • Revision: response references named gap types (Coherence/Background/Expression/Precision/Emergent) with revision verbs (exclude, remove, skip, add, redirect) → add to Λ.excluded or Λ.emergent, LOOP re-entry with filtered detection
  • Clarification: response addresses the presented Phase 2 question directly → Phase 2 integration (Phase 3)
  • Mixed: response contains both revision and clarification content → process revision first (update Λ and re-detect), then process clarification in the re-entered Phase 2
  • Ambiguous: content could be either and surface interpretation differs from latent interpretation → present: "Your response could be interpreted as [X revision] or [Y clarification]. Which did you intend?" (do not silently choose)
  • Exclusion-to-empty: if free response excludes the last remaining type in Gₛ, |Gₛ| = 0 on next filter → convergence path per LOOP (evaluate |remaining| = 0)

Rationale (option-set relay test, Extension classification): Under user-invoked or user-confirmed activation, "Proceed with current taxonomy" is the dominant option — a separate proceed/revise Constitution interaction would present false alternatives. Full taxonomy presentation is preserved (Extension/auto-proceed) to support Recognition during Phase 2 answer formulation; taxonomy revision is reachable via Phase 2 Constitution interaction free response with classification discriminator above.

Phase 2: Clarification

Present clarification options via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution). Constitution presentation yields turn for user response.

Override disclosure (detection with user authority): At each Phase 2 Constitution interaction, include a brief disclosure line in the pre-Constitution-interaction context surfacing the free-response override capability — without this disclosure the user cannot exercise authority they do not know they hold. Example disclosure: "(Free response beyond the options: exclude this gap type, add an emergent type, or redirect to a different expression — see Phase 1b response classification.)"

Present the detected ambiguity as text output:

  • The potential ambiguity: [gap description]

Then present:

Which best captures your intent?

Options:
1. **[Option A]**: [interpretation with implications]
2. **[Option B]**: [interpretation with implications]
3. **[Option C]**: [interpretation with implications]

Other is always available — user can provide their own phrasing or a different interpretation not listed.

Question design principles:

  • Recognition over Recall: Present options, don't ask open questions
  • Concrete implications: Show what each choice means for execution
  • Free response preserved: Other/free phrasing is structurally available, not conditionally included
  • Minimal options: 2-4 choices maximum per gap

Consult references/socratic-style.md for maieutic framing examples, Socratic elements, and example transformation.

Phase 3: Integration

After user response:

  1. Incorporate: Update understanding with user's clarification
  2. Re-diagnose + Filter + Converge: Per LOOP — re-scan Eᵥ, filter clarified gaps, check convergence
  3. Confirm: When no gaps remain, present clarified intent for verification
  4. Proceed: Continue with clarified expression

Discovery triggers:

  • Clarification reveals new ambiguity ("I mean the API" → "which endpoint?")
  • Answer creates new tension ("fast" + "thorough" → coherence gap)
  • Context shift ("for production" → new precision requirements)
## Clarified Intent — Convergence Evidence

Transformation trace (each clarified gap → resolution):
- **[Gap type]**: [Eᵥ evidence] → [Clarified meaning from A]
- **[Gap type]**: [Eᵥ evidence] → [Clarified meaning from A]

Proceeding with this understanding.

Intensity

LevelWhenFormat
LightMinor ambiguity, low stakesConstitution interaction with binary disambiguation
MediumSignificant ambiguity, moderate stakesGap statement + structured Constitution interaction with multiple options
HeavyCore intent unclear, high stakesDetailed options with implications + structured Constitution interaction

Multi-Gap Handling

When multiple gaps detected:

  1. Sequential: Address one gap at a time, highest priority first
  2. Bundled: If gaps are interdependent, present as combined question
  3. Dynamic Discovery: After each clarification, re-diagnose for newly surfaced gaps
  4. Merge: Combine existing queue with newly discovered gaps, re-prioritize

Termination conditions: Per LOOP — cycle detection, progress stall (Δ = 0 for 2 rounds), user exit.

Gap queue limit: Max 4 gaps queued at any time (drop lowest priority if exceeded)

On termination:

  • Summarize current understanding
  • Ask user to rephrase if stuck
  • Proceed with best interpretation if user approves

Rules

  1. Hybrid-initiated, user-confirmed: Activate on user signal, or with user confirmation when AI detects ambiguous expression
  2. Recognition over Recall: Present structured options via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution) — structured content reaches the user with response opportunity — Constitution interaction requires turn yield before proceeding
  3. Detection with user authority: AI presents full taxonomy assessment as Extension (auto-proceed) — every named type with detection status, evidence, and falsification condition. User authority is exercised at Phase 2 clarification Constitution interactions (including free-response override: emergent add, type exclusion, redirect), not at a separate taxonomy-confirmation Constitution interaction. Guard: Abbreviating the taxonomy (omitting named types, evidence, or falsification conditions) under the rationale that Phase 2 free-response override provides correction = protocol violation. Full taxonomy presentation at Phase 1b is structurally required regardless of Extension/Constitution classification; override is a user authority channel, not an AI shortcut for incomplete detection
  4. Maieutic over Informational: Frame questions to guide discovery, not merely gather data
  5. Articulation support: Help user express what they know, don't guess what they mean
  6. Minimal questioning: Surface only gaps that affect execution
  7. Consequential options: Each option shows interpretation with downstream implications
  8. User authority: User's choice is final; no second-guessing selected interpretation
  9. Convergence persistence: Mode remains active until convergence (|remaining| = 0, cycle, or user exit)
  10. Reflective pause: Include "reconsider" option for complex intent clarification
  11. Escape hatch: Always allow user to provide their own phrasing
  12. Small phases: Prefer granular phases with user checkpoints over large autonomous phases
  13. Context-Question Separation: Output all analysis, evidence, and rationale as text before presenting via Cognitive Partnership Move (Constitution). The question contains only the essential question; options contain only option-specific differential implications. Embedding context in question fields = protocol violation
  14. Convergence evidence: Present transformation trace before declaring |remaining| = 0; per-gap evidence is required
  15. Zero-gap surfacing: If detect(Eᵥ) finds no gaps (Gd = ∅), present this finding with reasoning for user confirmation
  16. Full taxonomy assessment: Phase 1b must present ALL named gap types with detection status and evidence. Presenting only detected types with a generic "Add" option = protocol violation (Recognition over Recall applied to Constitution interaction content)
  17. Falsification condition: Each not-currently-detected type must include "would apply if [specific condition]" — exclusion rationale without falsification condition = protocol violation
  18. Emergent probe: Emergent slot must include an active probe question or AI-detected hypothesis with evidence. "No emergent gaps detected" as bare statement without probe = protocol violation
  19. Option-set relay test (Extension classification): If AI analysis converges to a single dominant option (option-level entropy→0 — Extension mode of the Cognitive Partnership Move), present the finding directly. Each Constitution option must be genuinely viable under different user value weightings. Options sharing a downstream trajectory collapse to one; options lacking an on-axis trajectory surface as free-response pathways rather than peer options
  20. Gate integrity: The defined option set is presented intact — injection, deletion, and substitution each violate this invariant. Type-preserving materialization (specializing a generic option while preserving the TYPES coproduct) is distinct from mutation
Repository
jongwony/epistemic-protocols
Last updated
Created

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.