fidelity
Skill5 starsChanged 44 days agoMITView on GitHub
Prevents lossy compression from erasing conditions, exceptions, and uncertainties during summarization. Now with mathematical depth metrics, fidelity diff algorithm, compression integrity , and verification gates.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- sukirman1901/frontend-experttheir own version, first seen Sep 10, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- sukirman1901/frontend-expert★ 9same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository28 other files it gives its agents.
- api-designerSkill
- copy-engineerSkill
- adversarySkill
- anchorSkill
- boundary-detectorSkill
- clarifySkill
- conductorSkill
- contradictSkill
- deep-thinkSkill
- descendSkill
- divergeSkill
- emergenceSkill
- excavateSkill
- invertSkill
- meta-learningSkill
- negative-spaceSkill
- provenanceSkill
- reframeSkill
- shallowSkill
- teachSkill
- temporalSkill
- thresholdSkill
- verification-gatesSkill
- mobile-engineerSkill
- performance-engineerSkill
- product-engineerSkill
- refactor-engineerSkill
- system-architectSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
8 rules. About 0 are common, 7 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈7
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 74
Before writing the compressed version, read the full analysis and tag every item that, if dropped, makes the summary misleading.
- Distinctive: line 166
Write the clear, concise answer you want to deliver.
- Very specific: line 376
If recursion_depth > 1, apply this entire protocol to your own output from Steps 1-5.
- Distinctive: line 379
Treat your previous output as the "answer under review"
- Distinctive: line 380
Run Steps 1-5 on it
- Distinctive: line 386
If RSM > 0.95 AND SI_d ≥ SI_{d-1} for 2 consecutive depths → CONVERGED, stop
- Distinctive: line 387
If RSM < 0.80 OR SI_d < SI_{d-1} for 2 consecutive depths → DIVERGED, stop, use best depth
- Distinctive: line 388
If d = max_depth → stop, use current
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
FIDELITY v2.0 — Compression Integrity Verifier (Premium)
Mathematical Compliance: This skill implements the DEPTH-MATHEMATICS specification. It computes and outputs ADS phase activation, CEI components, SI components, cognitive traces, and verifies Gates V1, V5, V6. It produces a Compression Integrity for the Depth .
You just did deep thinking. You explored approaches, found edge cases, identified caveats, surfaced conditions. Now you're compressing it into a clean final answer.
This is the moment truth disappears.
The Failure Mode You Must Recognize
Two pressures compete: be thorough and be concise. The result is lossy compression:
- "This works IF X" becomes "This works" (condition dropped)
- "True EXCEPT when Y" becomes "True" (exception erased)
- "70% confident because Z" becomes a declarative statement (uncertainty hidden)
- "Option B was close, better if Q changes" becomes invisible (alternative forgotten)
The summary is cleaner, shorter, more confident — and less true than the analysis that produced it. The user makes decisions based on a simplified reality that you know is incomplete.
Cargo cult fidelity produces tags without verifying survival through compression. This skill rejects them.
The Protocol
0 — PARAMETERIZE: Read Thinking Parameters
Read thinking_parameters:
min_tags(default 5) — minimum critical information tagsrequire_integrity_(default true) — issue compression integrityrequire_fidelity_diff(default true) — compute fidelity diff algorithmicallyrecursion_depth(default 1) — recursive self-audit rounds
Step 1 — TAG: Mark Critical Information Before Compressing
Before writing the compressed version, read the full analysis and tag every item that, if dropped, makes the summary misleading. Write each tag:
CRITICAL INFORMATION TAGS
────────────────────────────────────────
TAG 1 — CONDITION:
Full: "[recommendation] IF [condition]"
If dropped: user tries it where [condition] is false → [consequence]
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
TAG 2 — EXCEPTION:
Full: "True EXCEPT when [scenario]"
If dropped: user applies universally → hits [scenario] unprepared
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
TAG 3 — UNCERTAINTY:
Full: "[confidence level] because [evidence state]"
If dropped: user treats as certain → no contingency when wrong
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
TAG 4 — ALTERNATIVE:
Full: "Option B was close — better if [condition changes]"
If dropped: user can't adapt when conditions change
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
TAG 5 — DEPENDENCY:
Full: "Depends on [X] being true/available/stable"
If dropped: user doesn't verify [X] → failure when [X] is absent
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
[Additional tags up to min_tags...]
────────────────────────────────────────Types to scan for:
- Conditions — "works IF"
- Exceptions — "true EXCEPT"
- Uncertainties — confidence levels, evidence gaps
- Alternatives — near-winners that matter if context changes
- Dependencies — things this answer relies on
- Assumptions — from EXCAVATE interference (C2/C3)
- Boundary violations — from NEGATIVE-SPACE interference
Minimum min_tags. Tag what exists. The types to scan for come from the full analysis plus interference.
Artifact: The tagged list with criticality ratings.
CEI Component: Critical Information Tags (weight 3.0)
Step 2 — FIDELITY DIFF ALGORITHM (if require_fidelity_diff = true)
NEW IN v2.0 — Algorithmic diff between full analysis and compressed version.
FIDELITY DIFF ALGORITHM
────────────────────────────────────────
Input: Full analysis text + Compressed version text + Critical tags
For each tag:
Tag: [TAG N — TYPE]
Full text segment: [exact text from full analysis]
Compressed segment: [corresponding text in compressed version]
Match Score: [0.0-1.0 — semantic similarity]
Preserved: [YES / NO / PARTIAL]
If NO/PARTIAL:
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
Action: [RESTORE / FLAG / ACCEPT]
Restoration text: [minimal text to restore — e.g., "(assuming stable network)"]
Aggregate Metrics:
Tags Total: N
Preserved: N (XX%)
Partially Preserved: N (XX%)
Dropped: N (XX%)
Blocking Dropped: N
Risky Dropped: N
Fidelity Score: [Preserved + 0.5×Partial] / Total = 0.XX
────────────────────────────────────────Match Score Computation: Semantic similarity between full segment and compressed segment (using embeddings or LLM-based similarity).
Artifact: fidelity_diff — algorithmic verification of compression integrity.
CEI Component: Fidelity Diff (weight 4.0)
Step 3 — COMPRESS: Write the Short Version
Write the clear, concise answer you want to deliver. Do not consult the tags. Write naturally — as concise as the content allows.
Artifact: The compressed version.
CEI Component: Compressed Version (weight 1.0)
Step 4 — DIFF: Check Each Tag Against the Compressed Version
For each tag from Step 1, verify against the fidelity diff:
FIDELITY VERIFICATION
────────────────────────────────────────
TAG 1 — CONDITION:
Match Score: 0.XX
Preserved: [YES / NO / PARTIAL]
If NO/PARTIAL:
Criticality: [BLOCKING / RISKY / INCOMPLETE]
Action Taken: [RESTORED / FLAGGED / ACCEPTED]
Restoration: [text added to compressed version]
TAG 2 — EXCEPTION:
...
Restore Rule: Any tag with Criticality = BLOCKING that is NOT preserved MUST be restored.
Risky tags SHOULD be restored. Incomplete tags MAY be accepted with justification.
Restoration Techniques (minimum-length):
- Inline qualifier: "Works well (assuming stable network)" — 4 words
- Caveat footer: Brief "Watch for:" section at the end
- Conditional phrasing: "For standard cases, X. For [edge], use Y instead."
- Confidence signal: "High confidence for typical setups. Untested for [scenario]."
────────────────────────────────────────Artifact: The fidelity verification with actions taken.
CEI Component: Fidelity Verification (weight 3.0)
Step 5 — COMPRESSION INTEGRITY (if require_integrity_ = true)
NEW IN v2.0 — Formal of compression integrity.
COMPRESSION INTEGRITY
────────────────────────────────────────
ID: cic_<timestamp>_<hash>
Full Analysis Tokens: N
Compressed Tokens: M
Compression Ratio: M/N = 0.XX
Critical Tags: N
Preserved: N (XX%)
Partially Preserved: N (XX%)
Dropped: N (XX%)
Blocking Dropped: N
Risky Dropped: N
Incomplete Dropped: N
Fidelity Score: [0.0-1.0]
Integrity Status: [LOSSLESS / ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE]
Lossless: All BLOCKING/RISKY tags preserved. Summary is as true as the analysis.
Acceptable: Minor INCOMPLETE tags omitted with justification. No decision risk.
Unacceptable: BLOCKING/RISKY tags missing. Revise before delivery.
Restorations Made: [count]
Justified Omissions: [list with reasoning]
────────────────────────────────────────Artifact: compression_integrity_ — formal verification of compression integrity.
CEI Component: Integrity (weight 3.0)
Step 6 — WRITE THE FIDELITY VERDICT
FIDELITY VERDICT
────────────────────────────────────────
Critical items tagged: [count]
Preserved in first draft: [count]
Restored after diff: [count]
Intentionally omitted: [count] — [justification per item]
Fidelity Score: [0.0-1.0]
Status: [LOSSLESS / ACCEPTABLE / UNACCEPTABLE]
Lossless: All critical items preserved. Summary is as true as the analysis.
Acceptable: Minor items omitted with justification. No decision risk.
Unacceptable: Critical items missing. Revise before delivery.
────────────────────────────────────────Artifact: The fidelity verdict.
CEI Component: Fidelity Verdict (weight 2.0)
7 — METRICS: Compute and Output Depth Metrics
7.1 Phase Activation (for ADS)
{
"phase": 4,
"skill": "fidelity",
"artifact_completeness": 0.XX,
"gate_pass_rate": 0.XX,
"external_validity": 0.XX,
"human_eval": 0.XX,
"phase_activation": 0.XX
}7.2 CEI Components
{
"cei_components": {
"critical_tags": 3.0,
"fidelity_diff": 4.0,
"compressed_version": 1.0,
"fidelity_verification": 3.0,
"integrity_": 3.0,
"fidelity_verdict": 2.0,
"total_complexity_weight": 16.0,
"output_tokens": N,
"wall_time_seconds": T,
"cei": 0.XX
}
}7.3 SI Components
{
"si_components": {
"c2_c3_count": 0,
"contrarian_viable": false,
"fatal_attacks": 0,
"boundary_violations": 0,
"assumption_reversals": 0,
"blocking_dropped": N,
"risky_dropped": N,
"si_total": N
}
}7.4 Cognitive Traces
Fidelity Diff Visualization:
{
"type": "fidelity_diff",
"tags": [
{"tag": "TAG 1", "type": "CONDITION", "match_score": 0.XX, "preserved": true, "criticality": "BLOCKING"},
{"tag": "TAG 2", "type": "EXCEPTION", "match_score": 0.XX, "preserved": false, "criticality": "RISKY", "action": "RESTORED"}
],
"aggregate": {
"total": N,
"preserved": N,
"partial": N,
"dropped": N,
"fidelity_score": 0.XX
}
}Compression Integrity : (as defined in Step 5)
7.5 Depth Contribution
{
"skill": "fidelity",
"version": "2.0",
"metrics": {"ads_contribution": 0.XX, "cei": 0.XX, "si": N, "ec": 0.XX},
"gates_verified": {"V1": true, "V5": true, "V6": true},
"limitations": ["..."]
}8 — GATES: Verify Before Delivery
MANDATORY — Verify these gates PASS:
| Gate | Check | Pass Condition |
| V1 | Assumption Coverage | Every critical tag traces to an assumption/analysis finding (≥90%) |
| V5 | Evidence Calibration | Fidelity Score ≥ 0.8; no BLOCKING tags dropped |
| V6 | Recursive Stability | If recursion: RSM > 0.95 ∧ SI not decreasing |
If any gate FAILS: Return to relevant step and fix. Do not deliver.
9 — RECURSIVE SELF-AUDIT (if recursion_depth > 1)
If recursion_depth > 1, apply this entire protocol to your own output from Steps 1-5.
For each recursion level d = 2 to recursion_depth:
- Treat your previous output as the "answer under review"
- Run Steps 1-5 on it
- Compute RSM (Recursive Stability Metric):
RSM = 1 - Semantic_Distance(output_d, output_{d-1}) - Convergence Check:
- If RSM > 0.95 AND SI_d ≥ SI_{d-1} for 2 consecutive depths → CONVERGED, stop
- If RSM < 0.80 OR SI_d < SI_{d-1} for 2 consecutive depths → DIVERGED, stop, use best depth
- If d = max_depth → stop, use current
Artifact: recursion_log with RSM and SI at each depth.
CEI Component: Recursive Audit (weight 5.0 per level)
10 — INTERFERENCE: Receive and Provide
Receive from prior skills:
| From Skill | Interference | Use |
| CONTRADICT | Resolved conflicts | Tag as BLOCKING items that must survive |
| PROVENANCE | Evidence tags (F/I/G/S) + EC | Tag uncertainties with evidence quality |
| NEGATIVE-SPACE | Critical silences | Tag as BLOCKING omissions |
| BOUNDARY-DETECTOR | Knowledge gaps | Tag as BLOCKING dependencies |
| EXCAVATE | C2/C3 assumptions | Tag as BLOCKING conditions |
Provide to later skills:
| To Skill | Interference | Minimum ADS Gain |
| THRESHOLD | BLOCKING tags → early warning signals | +0.15 |
| CONDUCTOR | Fidelity score, | +0.15 |
| META-LEARNING | Dropped tag patterns → skill synthesis | +0.10 |
Artifact: interference_log (received and provided).
The Deeper Purpose
The model's best thinking happens during exploration. Its worst habit is discarding that thinking during delivery. If the final answer is a lossy compression of the truth, the user acts on an incomplete version of what the model itself knows is more complex. This skill ensures the distance between what-the-model-knows and what-the-user-receives is minimized — not by being verbose, but by algorithmically verifying that the specific pieces of truth that change decisions survive compression. Now it's quantified (fidelity score), certified (integrity ), and verified (gates).
MATHEMATICS COMPLIANCE
Phase Activation Output
This skill contributes to Phase 4. It outputs:
{
"phase": 4,
"skill": "fidelity",
"artifact_completeness": 0.XX,
"gate_pass_rate": 0.XX,
"external_validity": 0.XX,
"human_eval": 0.XX,
"phase_activation": 0.XX
}CEI Components
- Artifacts produced: critical_tags (3.0), fidelity_diff (4.0), compressed_version (1.0), fidelity_verification (3.0), integrity_ (3.0), fidelity_verdict (2.0)
- Total complexity weight: 16.0
SI Components
- C2/C3 assumptions: 0
- Contrarian viable: false
- Fatal attacks: 0
- Boundary violations: 0
- Assumption reversals: 0
- Blocking dropped: [count]
- Risky dropped: [count]
Cognitive Traces Produced
- Fidelity Diff Visualization
- Compression Integrity
- Decision Landscape
Gates Verified
- V1 [ ] V2 [ ] V3 [ ] V4 [x] V5 [x] V6
- Human Eval [ ] Held-Out [ ] Ensemble
Required Interferences
- From CONTRADICT: Resolved conflicts → BLOCKING tags
- From PROVENANCE: Evidence tags + EC → uncertainty tagging
- From NEGATIVE-SPACE: Critical silences → BLOCKING omissions
- From BOUNDARY-DETECTOR: Knowledge gaps → BLOCKING dependencies
- From EXCAVATE: C2/C3 assumptions → BLOCKING conditions
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

