Christian Nennemann
1baaa79946
Trim verbose implementation details that duplicate what the bash helper scripts already handle. Memory skill: 278 -> 120 lines. Shadow detection skill: 180 -> 66 lines. All essential protocols, tables, and commands preserved; removed redundant algorithm descriptions, multiple examples, and narrative prose.
3.7 KiB
name, description
| name | description |
|---|---|
| shadow-detection | Use when monitoring agent behavior for dysfunction, when an agent seems stuck, or when orchestration quality is degrading. Detects and corrects Jungian shadow activation in archetypes. |
Shadow Detection
Every archetype has a virtue and a shadow (its destructive inversion). Shadow activates when the virtue is pushed too far.
| Archetype | Virtue | Shadow |
|---|---|---|
| Explorer | Contextual Clarity | Rabbit Hole |
| Creator | Decisive Framing | Over-Architect |
| Maker | Execution Discipline | Rogue |
| Guardian | Threat Intuition | Paranoid |
| Skeptic | Assumption Surfacing | Paralytic |
| Trickster | Adversarial Creativity | False Alarm |
| Sage | Maintainability Judgment | Bureaucrat |
Explorer -> Rabbit Hole
Detect (any): output >2000w without Recommendation | >3 tangents | >15 files no patterns | no synthesis in final 25% Correct: "Summarize top 3 findings and one recommendation in under 300 words."
Creator -> Over-Architect
Detect (any): >2 new abstractions for a single feature | "future-proof" in rationale | scope exceeds task by >50% | >1 new package for one feature Correct: "Design for the current order of magnitude. Remove abstractions that serve hypothetical requirements."
Maker -> Rogue
Detect (any): zero test files with >=3 files changed | single monolithic commit | diff contains files not in proposal | no evidence of running tests Correct: "Read the proposal. Write a test. Commit what you have. Revert changes to files not in the proposal."
Guardian -> Paranoid
Detect (any): CRITICAL:WARNING ratio >2:1 (min 3 findings) | zero APPROVED in 3+ reviews | <50% findings include a fix | findings require already-compromised systems Correct: "For each CRITICAL: would a senior engineer block a PR for this? If not, downgrade. Every rejection must include a specific fix."
Skeptic -> Paralytic
Detect (any): >7 challenges in a single review | <50% include alternatives | same concern appears 2+ times reworded | >3 findings outside task scope Correct: "Rank challenges by impact. Keep top 3. Each must include a specific alternative. Delete the rest."
Trickster -> False Alarm
Detect (any): findings reference code untouched by diff | >10 findings for <5 files | impossible deployment scenarios | >3 findings without repro steps Correct: "Delete findings outside the diff. Rank remaining by likelihood x impact. Keep top 3-5."
Sage -> Bureaucrat
Detect (any): review words >2x diff lines | findings reference files not in changeset | >2 "consider" without concrete action | suggesting docs for <5-line functions Correct: "Limit to issues affecting maintainability in the next 6 months. Every finding must end with a specific action."
Escalation Protocol
- 1st detection: Log the shadow, apply the correction prompt, let the agent continue
- 2nd detection (same agent, same shadow): Replace the agent -- the shadow is entrenched
- 3+ agents shadowed in same cycle: Escalate to user -- the task may need to be broken down
Shadow Immunity
Some behaviors look like shadows but are not. Rule of thumb: shadow = behavior disconnected from the goal. Intensity alone is not a shadow.
- Explorer reading 20 files in a monorepo with scattered dependencies -- not a rabbit hole if each file is genuinely relevant
- Creator adding an abstraction -- not over-architect if the current task genuinely needs it
- Guardian blocking with 2 CRITICALs -- not paranoid if both are genuine security vulnerabilities
- Trickster finding 5 edge cases -- not false alarm if all are in changed code with repro steps
- Sage writing a long review -- not bureaucrat if the change is large and every finding is actionable