[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"skill:01M6D74AM66NKDGRSR2TSA72XD":3,"skill-same:01M6D74AM66NKDGRSR2TSA72XD":119},{"skillNo":4,"name":5,"nameZh":6,"description":7,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":16,"categories":17,"keywords":23,"publishedAt":44,"linkOnly":45,"markdownContent":46,"markdownBody":47,"frontMatter":48,"refName":56,"commitSha":57,"skillDirectory":58,"forksCount":59,"repositoryHtmlUrl":60,"repositoryHomepageUrl":6,"ownerHtmlUrl":61,"ownerBlogUrl":62,"ownerDescription":63,"updatedAt":64,"install":65,"resources":78},"01M6D74AM66NKDGRSR2TSA72XD","agent-protocol",null,"Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.","oabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw","oabdelmaksoud","https:\u002F\u002Favatars.githubusercontent.com\u002Fu\u002F50699149?v=4","01M6D5CVVN778ZCDP1WHS816SP","Omar Abdelmaksoud","01M6D5CW1RHNSKCJR85GJACBFT",2,"MIT","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fagent-protocol\u002FSKILL.md",[18],{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000023","Skill与智能体开发","SCENARIO","使用场景",[24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43],"protocol","agent protocol","roles","orchestration","query","patterns","coordinate","agent teams","agent communication","use","meetings","board","syntax","Rules","loop","analysis","prevention","communication","run","teams","2026-11-10 10:12:30",false,"---\nname: agent-protocol\ndescription: \"Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-suite agents need to query each other, coordinate cross-functional analysis, or run board meetings with multiple agent roles.\"\nlicense: MIT\nmetadata:\n  version: 1.0.0\n  author: Alireza Rezvani\n  category: c-level\n  domain: agent-orchestration\n  updated: 2026-03-05\n  frameworks: invocation-patterns\n---\n\n# Inter-Agent Protocol\n\nHow C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.\n\n## Keywords\nagent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol\n\n## Invocation Syntax\n\nAny agent can query another using:\n\n```\n[INVOKE:role|question]\n```\n\n**Examples:**\n```\n[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]\n[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]\n[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]\n[INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]\n```\n\n**Valid roles:** `ceo`, `cfo`, `cro`, `cmo`, `cpo`, `cto`, `chro`, `coo`, `ciso`\n\n## Response Format\n\nInvoked agents respond using this structure:\n\n```\n[RESPONSE:role]\nKey finding: [one line — the actual answer]\nSupporting data:\n  - [data point 1]\n  - [data point 2]\n  - [data point 3 — optional]\nConfidence: [high | medium | low]\nCaveat: [one line — what could make this wrong]\n[\u002FRESPONSE]\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\n[RESPONSE:cfo]\nKey finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.\nSupporting data:\n  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)\n  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months\n  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that target\nConfidence: medium\nCaveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.\n[\u002FRESPONSE]\n```\n\n## Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)\n\nThese rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.\n\n### Rule 1: No Self-Invocation\nAn agent cannot invoke itself.\n```\n❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED\n```\n\n### Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2\nChains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.\n```\n✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)\n❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)\n```\n\n### Rule 3: No Circular Calls\nIf agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.\n```\n✅ CRO → CFO → CMO\n❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)\n```\n\n### Rule 4: Chain Tracking\nEach invocation carries its call chain. Format:\n```\n[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]\n```\nAgents check this chain before responding with another invocation.\n\n**When blocked:** Return this instead of invoking:\n```\n[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]\nState assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]\n```\n\n## Isolation Rules\n\n### Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)\n**NO invocations allowed.** Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.\n- Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink\n- Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period\n- If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]`\n\n### Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)\nExecutive Mentor can **reference** other roles' outputs but **cannot invoke** them.\n- Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests\n- Allowed: \"The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data\"\n- Not allowed: `[INVOKE:cfo|...]` during critique phase\n\n### Outside Board Meetings\nInvocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.\n\n## When to Invoke vs When to Assume\n\n**Invoke when:**\n- The question requires domain-specific data you don't have\n- An error here would materially change the recommendation\n- The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)\n\n**Assume when:**\n- The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical\n- You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)\n- The chain is already at depth 2\n- The question is minor compared to your main analysis\n\n**When assuming, always state it:**\n```\n[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]\n```\n\n## Conflict Resolution\n\nWhen two invoked agents give conflicting answers:\n\n1. **Flag the conflict explicitly:**\n   ```\n   [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]\n   ```\n2. **State the resolution approach:**\n   - Conservative: use the worse case\n   - Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores\n   - Escalate: flag for human decision\n3. **Never silently pick one** — surface the conflict to the user.\n\n## Broadcast Pattern (Crisis \u002F CEO)\n\nCEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:\n```\n[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]\n```\n\nResponses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Rule | Behavior |\n|------|----------|\n| Self-invoke | ❌ Always blocked |\n| Depth > 2 | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |\n| Circular | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |\n| Phase 2 isolation | ❌ No invocations |\n| Phase 3 critique | ❌ Reference only, no invoke |\n| Conflict | ✅ Surface it, don't hide it |\n| Assumption | ✅ Always explicit with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]` |\n\n## Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)\n\nNo role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.\n\n### Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)\n\nBefore presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:\n\n```\nSELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:\n□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?\n  ✅ \"ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)\"\n  ❌ \"ARR is around $2M\" (no source, vague)\n\n□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?\n  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]\n  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence\n\n□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?\n  ? High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources\n  ? Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty\n  ? Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis\n\n□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?\n  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log\n  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly\n\n□ \"So What?\" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?\n  If you can't answer \"so what?\" in one sentence → cut it\n```\n\n### Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)\n\nWhen a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.\n\n| If your recommendation involves... | Validate with... | They check... |\n|-------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|\n| Financial numbers or budget | CFO | Math, runway impact, budget reality |\n| Revenue projections | CRO | Pipeline backing, historical accuracy |\n| Headcount or hiring | CHRO | Market reality, comp feasibility, timeline |\n| Technical feasibility or timeline | CTO | Engineering capacity, technical debt load |\n| Operational process changes | COO | Capacity, dependencies, scaling impact |\n| Customer-facing changes | CRO + CPO | Churn risk, product roadmap conflict |\n| Security or compliance claims | CISO | Actual posture, regulation requirements |\n| Market or positioning claims | CMO | Data backing, competitive reality |\n\n**Peer validation format:**\n```\n[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]\nValidated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct\nAdjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)\nFlagged: ? Missing equity cost in total comp projection\n[\u002FPEER-VERIFY]\n```\n\n**Skip peer verification when:**\n- Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact\n- Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)\n- Founder explicitly asked for a quick take\n\n### Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)\n\nFor decisions that are **irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company**, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.\n\n**Triggers for pre-screen:**\n- Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway\n- Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)\n- Changes company strategy or direction\n- Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)\n- Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)\n\n**Pre-screen output:**\n```\n[CRITIC-SCREEN]\nWeakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]\nMissing perspective: [What nobody considered]\nIf wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]\nProceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | ? Rethink\n[\u002FCRITIC-SCREEN]\n```\n\n### Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)\n\nThe loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:\n\n```\nFOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:\n1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions\n2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts\n3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY\n4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify\n\nPOST-DECISION REVIEW (30\u002F60\u002F90 days):\n- Was the recommendation correct?\n- What did we miss?\n- Update company-context.md with what we learned\n- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis\n```\n\n### Verification Level by Stakes\n\n| Stakes | Self-Verify | Peer-Verify | Critic Pre-Screen |\n|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------------|\n| Low (informational) | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip | ❌ Skip |\n| Medium (operational) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip |\n| High (strategic) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required |\n| Critical (irreversible) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required + board meeting |\n\n### What Changes in the Output Format\n\nThe verified output adds confidence and source information:\n\n```\nBOTTOM LINE\n[Answer] — Confidence: ? High\n\nWHAT\n• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] ?\n• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] ?  \n• [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] ?\n\nPEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)\n```\n\n---\n\n## User Communication Standard\n\nAll C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.\n\n### Standard Output (single-role response)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? [ROLE] — [Topic]\n\nBOTTOM LINE\n[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]\n\nWHAT\n• [Finding 1 — most critical]\n• [Finding 2]\n• [Finding 3]\n(Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)\n\nWHY THIS MATTERS\n[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]\n\nHOW TO ACT\n1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n\n⚠️ RISKS (if any)\n• [Risk + what triggers it]\n\n? YOUR DECISION (if needed)\nOption A: [Description] — [Trade-off]\nOption B: [Description] — [Trade-off]\nRecommendation: [Which and why, in one line]\n\n? DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? [ROLE] — Proactive Alert\n\nWHAT I NOTICED\n[What triggered this — specific, not vague]\n\nWHY IT MATTERS\n[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]\n\nRECOMMENDED ACTION\n[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]\n\nURGENCY: ? Act today | ? This week | ⚪ Next review\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]\n\nDECISION REQUIRED\n[Frame the decision in one sentence]\n\nPERSPECTIVES\n  CEO: [one-line position]\n  CFO: [one-line position]\n  CRO: [one-line position]\n  [... only roles that contributed]\n\nWHERE THEY AGREE\n• [Consensus point 1]\n• [Consensus point 2]\n\nWHERE THEY DISAGREE\n• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y\n• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y\n\nCRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)\n[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]\n\nRECOMMENDED DECISION\n[Clear recommendation with rationale]\n\nACTION ITEMS\n1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n\n? YOUR CALL\n[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Communication Rules (non-negotiable)\n\n1. **Bottom line first.** Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.\n2. **Results and decisions only.** No process narration (\"First I analyzed...\"). No thinking out loud.\n3. **What + Why + How.** Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.\n4. **Max 5 bullets per section.** Longer = reference doc.\n5. **Actions have owners and deadlines.** \"We should consider\" is banned. Who does what by when.\n6. **Decisions framed as options.** Not \"what do you think?\" — \"Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation.\"\n7. **The founder decides.** Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.\n8. **Risks are concrete.** Not \"there might be risks\" — \"if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z.\"\n9. **No jargon without explanation.** If you use a term, explain it on first use.\n10. **Silence is an option.** If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.\n\n## Reference\n- `references\u002Finvocation-patterns.md` — common cross-functional patterns with examples\n","# Inter-Agent Protocol\n\nHow C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.\n\n## Keywords\nagent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol\n\n## Invocation Syntax\n\nAny agent can query another using:\n\n```\n[INVOKE:role|question]\n```\n\n**Examples:**\n```\n[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]\n[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]\n[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]\n[INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]\n```\n\n**Valid roles:** `ceo`, `cfo`, `cro`, `cmo`, `cpo`, `cto`, `chro`, `coo`, `ciso`\n\n## Response Format\n\nInvoked agents respond using this structure:\n\n```\n[RESPONSE:role]\nKey finding: [one line — the actual answer]\nSupporting data:\n  - [data point 1]\n  - [data point 2]\n  - [data point 3 — optional]\nConfidence: [high | medium | low]\nCaveat: [one line — what could make this wrong]\n[\u002FRESPONSE]\n```\n\n**Example:**\n```\n[RESPONSE:cfo]\nKey finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.\nSupporting data:\n  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)\n  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months\n  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that target\nConfidence: medium\nCaveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.\n[\u002FRESPONSE]\n```\n\n## Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)\n\nThese rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.\n\n### Rule 1: No Self-Invocation\nAn agent cannot invoke itself.\n```\n❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED\n```\n\n### Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2\nChains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.\n```\n✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)\n❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)\n```\n\n### Rule 3: No Circular Calls\nIf agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.\n```\n✅ CRO → CFO → CMO\n❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)\n```\n\n### Rule 4: Chain Tracking\nEach invocation carries its call chain. Format:\n```\n[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]\n```\nAgents check this chain before responding with another invocation.\n\n**When blocked:** Return this instead of invoking:\n```\n[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]\nState assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]\n```\n\n## Isolation Rules\n\n### Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)\n**NO invocations allowed.** Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.\n- Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink\n- Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period\n- If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]`\n\n### Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)\nExecutive Mentor can **reference** other roles' outputs but **cannot invoke** them.\n- Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests\n- Allowed: \"The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data\"\n- Not allowed: `[INVOKE:cfo|...]` during critique phase\n\n### Outside Board Meetings\nInvocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.\n\n## When to Invoke vs When to Assume\n\n**Invoke when:**\n- The question requires domain-specific data you don't have\n- An error here would materially change the recommendation\n- The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)\n\n**Assume when:**\n- The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical\n- You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)\n- The chain is already at depth 2\n- The question is minor compared to your main analysis\n\n**When assuming, always state it:**\n```\n[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]\n```\n\n## Conflict Resolution\n\nWhen two invoked agents give conflicting answers:\n\n1. **Flag the conflict explicitly:**\n   ```\n   [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]\n   ```\n2. **State the resolution approach:**\n   - Conservative: use the worse case\n   - Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores\n   - Escalate: flag for human decision\n3. **Never silently pick one** — surface the conflict to the user.\n\n## Broadcast Pattern (Crisis \u002F CEO)\n\nCEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:\n```\n[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]\n```\n\nResponses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.\n\n## Quick Reference\n\n| Rule | Behavior |\n|------|----------|\n| Self-invoke | ❌ Always blocked |\n| Depth > 2 | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |\n| Circular | ❌ Blocked, state assumption |\n| Phase 2 isolation | ❌ No invocations |\n| Phase 3 critique | ❌ Reference only, no invoke |\n| Conflict | ✅ Surface it, don't hide it |\n| Assumption | ✅ Always explicit with `[ASSUMPTION: ...]` |\n\n## Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)\n\nNo role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.\n\n### Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)\n\nBefore presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:\n\n```\nSELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:\n□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?\n  ✅ \"ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)\"\n  ❌ \"ARR is around $2M\" (no source, vague)\n\n□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?\n  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]\n  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence\n\n□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?\n  ? High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources\n  ? Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty\n  ? Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis\n\n□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?\n  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log\n  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly\n\n□ \"So What?\" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?\n  If you can't answer \"so what?\" in one sentence → cut it\n```\n\n### Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)\n\nWhen a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.\n\n| If your recommendation involves... | Validate with... | They check... |\n|-------------------------------------|-------------------|---------------|\n| Financial numbers or budget | CFO | Math, runway impact, budget reality |\n| Revenue projections | CRO | Pipeline backing, historical accuracy |\n| Headcount or hiring | CHRO | Market reality, comp feasibility, timeline |\n| Technical feasibility or timeline | CTO | Engineering capacity, technical debt load |\n| Operational process changes | COO | Capacity, dependencies, scaling impact |\n| Customer-facing changes | CRO + CPO | Churn risk, product roadmap conflict |\n| Security or compliance claims | CISO | Actual posture, regulation requirements |\n| Market or positioning claims | CMO | Data backing, competitive reality |\n\n**Peer validation format:**\n```\n[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]\nValidated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct\nAdjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)\nFlagged: ? Missing equity cost in total comp projection\n[\u002FPEER-VERIFY]\n```\n\n**Skip peer verification when:**\n- Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact\n- Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)\n- Founder explicitly asked for a quick take\n\n### Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)\n\nFor decisions that are **irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company**, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.\n\n**Triggers for pre-screen:**\n- Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway\n- Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)\n- Changes company strategy or direction\n- Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)\n- Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)\n\n**Pre-screen output:**\n```\n[CRITIC-SCREEN]\nWeakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]\nMissing perspective: [What nobody considered]\nIf wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]\nProceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | ? Rethink\n[\u002FCRITIC-SCREEN]\n```\n\n### Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)\n\nThe loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:\n\n```\nFOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:\n1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions\n2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts\n3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY\n4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify\n\nPOST-DECISION REVIEW (30\u002F60\u002F90 days):\n- Was the recommendation correct?\n- What did we miss?\n- Update company-context.md with what we learned\n- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis\n```\n\n### Verification Level by Stakes\n\n| Stakes | Self-Verify | Peer-Verify | Critic Pre-Screen |\n|--------|-------------|-------------|-------------------|\n| Low (informational) | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip | ❌ Skip |\n| Medium (operational) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ❌ Skip |\n| High (strategic) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required |\n| Critical (irreversible) | ✅ Required | ✅ Required | ✅ Required + board meeting |\n\n### What Changes in the Output Format\n\nThe verified output adds confidence and source information:\n\n```\nBOTTOM LINE\n[Answer] — Confidence: ? High\n\nWHAT\n• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] ?\n• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] ?  \n• [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] ?\n\nPEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)\n```\n\n---\n\n## User Communication Standard\n\nAll C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.\n\n### Standard Output (single-role response)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? [ROLE] — [Topic]\n\nBOTTOM LINE\n[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]\n\nWHAT\n• [Finding 1 — most critical]\n• [Finding 2]\n• [Finding 3]\n(Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)\n\nWHY THIS MATTERS\n[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]\n\nHOW TO ACT\n1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n\n⚠️ RISKS (if any)\n• [Risk + what triggers it]\n\n? YOUR DECISION (if needed)\nOption A: [Description] — [Trade-off]\nOption B: [Description] — [Trade-off]\nRecommendation: [Which and why, in one line]\n\n? DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? [ROLE] — Proactive Alert\n\nWHAT I NOTICED\n[What triggered this — specific, not vague]\n\nWHY IT MATTERS\n[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]\n\nRECOMMENDED ACTION\n[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]\n\nURGENCY: ? Act today | ? This week | ⚪ Next review\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)\n\n```\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n\n? BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]\n\nDECISION REQUIRED\n[Frame the decision in one sentence]\n\nPERSPECTIVES\n  CEO: [one-line position]\n  CFO: [one-line position]\n  CRO: [one-line position]\n  [... only roles that contributed]\n\nWHERE THEY AGREE\n• [Consensus point 1]\n• [Consensus point 2]\n\nWHERE THEY DISAGREE\n• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y\n• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y\n\nCRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)\n[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]\n\nRECOMMENDED DECISION\n[Clear recommendation with rationale]\n\nACTION ITEMS\n1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]\n\n? YOUR CALL\n[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]\n\n━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━\n```\n\n### Communication Rules (non-negotiable)\n\n1. **Bottom line first.** Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.\n2. **Results and decisions only.** No process narration (\"First I analyzed...\"). No thinking out loud.\n3. **What + Why + How.** Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.\n4. **Max 5 bullets per section.** Longer = reference doc.\n5. **Actions have owners and deadlines.** \"We should consider\" is banned. Who does what by when.\n6. **Decisions framed as options.** Not \"what do you think?\" — \"Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation.\"\n7. **The founder decides.** Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.\n8. **Risks are concrete.** Not \"there might be risks\" — \"if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z.\"\n9. **No jargon without explanation.** If you use a term, explain it on first use.\n10. **Silence is an option.** If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.\n\n## Reference\n- `references\u002Finvocation-patterns.md` — common cross-functional patterns with examples\n",{"name":5,"license":15,"metadata":49,"description":7},{"author":50,"domain":51,"updated":52,"version":53,"category":54,"frameworks":55},"Alireza Rezvani","agent-orchestration",1772668800000,"1.0.0","c-level","invocation-patterns","main","7b610356e36623652299fa2acb477ff821b1d920","upstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fagent-protocol",0,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud","https:\u002F\u002Fwww.linkedin.com\u002Fin\u002Fo-abdelmaksoud\u002F","Full-Stack Engineer | AI Systems Architect | Building autonomous multi-agent systems","2026-03-08 21:12:53",{"source":8,"skillName":5,"commands":66,"prompt":76,"zipAvailable":77},[67,70,73],{"tool":68,"command":69},"npx","npx skills add oabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw --skill agent-protocol",{"tool":71,"command":72},"bunx","bunx skills add oabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw --skill agent-protocol",{"tool":74,"command":75},"pnpm","pnpm dlx skills add oabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw --skill agent-protocol","安装技能，技能地址：https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fagent-protocol\u002FSKILL.md",true,[79,85,89,95,99,103,107,111,115],{"path":80,"resourceType":81,"resourceTypeDesc":82,"sizeBytes":83,"sourceHtmlUrl":84},"assets\u002Fquality-checklist.md","ASSET","资产文件",9664,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Fassets\u002Fquality-checklist.md",{"path":86,"resourceType":81,"resourceTypeDesc":82,"sizeBytes":87,"sourceHtmlUrl":88},"assets\u002Freport-template.md",29164,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Fassets\u002Freport-template.md",{"path":90,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":93,"sourceHtmlUrl":94},"references\u002Finvocation-patterns.md","REFERENCE","参考文档",9392,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fclaude-skills\u002Fc-level-advisor\u002Fagent-protocol\u002Freferences\u002Finvocation-patterns.md",{"path":96,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":97,"sourceHtmlUrl":98},"references\u002Ftask1-company-research.md",12068,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Ftask1-company-research.md",{"path":100,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":101,"sourceHtmlUrl":102},"references\u002Ftask2-financial-modeling.md",27815,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Ftask2-financial-modeling.md",{"path":104,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":105,"sourceHtmlUrl":106},"references\u002Ftask3-valuation.md",22708,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Ftask3-valuation.md",{"path":108,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":109,"sourceHtmlUrl":110},"references\u002Ftask4-chart-generation.md",32906,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Ftask4-chart-generation.md",{"path":112,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":113,"sourceHtmlUrl":114},"references\u002Ftask5-report-assembly.md",52035,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Ftask5-report-assembly.md",{"path":116,"resourceType":91,"resourceTypeDesc":92,"sizeBytes":117,"sourceHtmlUrl":118},"references\u002Fvaluation-methodologies.md",14111,"https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Fanthropics\u002Ffinancial-services\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fplugins\u002Fvertical-plugins\u002Fequity-research\u002Fskills\u002Finitiating-coverage\u002Freferences\u002Fvaluation-methodologies.md",[120,139,152,180,205,223],{"skillNo":121,"name":122,"nameZh":6,"description":123,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":124,"categories":125,"keywords":129,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88QCPTBZVCRED0NZ1Y8K8","visa-doc-translate","Translate visa application documents (images) to English and create a bilingual PDF with original and translation","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Fvisa-doc-translate\u002FSKILL.md",[126],{"categoryNo":127,"categoryName":128,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000002","文档处理",[130,131,132,133,134,135,136,137,138],"translate","doc","visa doc translate","translation","application","create","images","PDF","documents",{"skillNo":140,"name":141,"nameZh":6,"description":142,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":143,"categories":144,"keywords":145,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88NBM95T3TFM50CYYAP65","verification-loop","A comprehensive verification system for Claude Code sessions.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Fverification-loop\u002FSKILL.md",[],[146,38,147,148,149,150,151],"verification","verification loop","sessions","code","claude code sessions","system",{"skillNo":153,"name":154,"nameZh":6,"description":155,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":156,"categories":157,"keywords":167,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88JFZ2P996GVRHJNSZSTM","tdd-workflow","Use this skill when writing new features, fixing bugs, or refactoring code. Enforces test-driven development with 80%+ coverage including unit, integration, and E2E tests.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Ftdd-workflow\u002FSKILL.md",[158,161,162],{"categoryNo":159,"categoryName":160,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000008","测试与质量",{"categoryNo":19,"categoryName":20,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},{"categoryNo":163,"categoryName":164,"taxonomyType":165,"taxonomyTypeDesc":166},"01JBSEEDCAT000000000000030","开发工程师","PROFESSION","适用职业",[168,169,170,171,172,173,149,174,33,175,176,177,178,179],"tdd","workflow","tdd workflow","e2e tests","e2e","integration","development","test","refactoring","coverage","tests","writing",{"skillNo":181,"name":182,"nameZh":6,"description":183,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":184,"categories":185,"keywords":186,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88FTHRRSVJMXF2G7MQAK3","swiftui-patterns","SwiftUI architecture patterns, state management with @Observable, view composition, navigation, performance optimization, and modern iOS\u002FmacOS UI best practices.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Fswiftui-patterns\u002FSKILL.md",[],[29,187,188,189,190,191,192,193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204],"swiftui","swiftui patterns","architecture","macos","performance","state management","best practices","state","ui","Optimization","ios","architecture patterns","Composition","performance optimization","view","management","swiftui architecture","navigation",{"skillNo":206,"name":207,"nameZh":6,"description":208,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":209,"categories":210,"keywords":212,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88D527QTQT9DKHTRFN6EA","swift-protocol-di-testing","Protocol-based dependency injection for testable Swift code — mock file system, network, and external APIs using focused protocols and Swift Testing.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Fswift-protocol-di-testing\u002FSKILL.md",[211],{"categoryNo":159,"categoryName":160,"taxonomyType":21,"taxonomyTypeDesc":22},[213,24,214,215,149,216,217,218,219,151,220,221,222],"swift protocol di testing","swift","testing","protocols","file","network","injection","dependency","swift testing","dependency injection",{"skillNo":224,"name":225,"nameZh":6,"description":226,"descriptionZh":6,"repositoryFullName":8,"ownerLogin":9,"ownerAvatarUrl":10,"ownerAccountNo":11,"ownerDisplayName":12,"repositoryNo":13,"starsCount":14,"licenseSpdxId":15,"licenseFileUrl":6,"sourceHtmlUrl":227,"categories":228,"keywords":229,"publishedAt":44},"01M6D88AJW8H2QNWSW5ZY82R43","swift-concurrency-6-2","Swift 6.2 Approachable Concurrency — single-threaded by default, @concurrent for explicit background offloading, isolated conformances for main actor types.","https:\u002F\u002Fgithub.com\u002Foabdelmaksoud\u002FSuperClaw\u002Fblob\u002Fmain\u002Fupstream-sync\u002Fwork\u002Fecc\u002Fskills\u002Fswift-concurrency-6-2\u002FSKILL.md",[],[230,231,214,232,233,56],"concurrency","swift concurrency","swift concurrency 6 2","default"]