@human-avatar/skills-for-humanity 1.0.0

package/skills/social/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+---
+name: social
+description: "Entry point for the social dynamics toolkit. Routes to the right social skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'social', 'people', 'politics', 'who decides', 'group dynamics', 'who do I need to get on board', 'follow the incentives', 'who has power', or want social/organizational reasoning applied without knowing which specific tool fits."
+---
+
+# Social
+
+Applies social and organizational reasoning to group dynamics, power, incentives, and coalition-building. Diagnoses what kind of social analysis is needed and applies the right tool.
+
+## Which tool fits
+
+| You need to... | Tool |
+|---|---|
+| Map who needs to be aligned and how to build support | coalition-mapping |
+| Understand the group psychology shaping a team or discussion | dynamics-analysis |
+| Find the actual incentives driving behavior | incentive-analysis |
+| Map who holds formal and informal power | power-mapping |
+
+## Routing Decision
+
+- **Proposal needs stakeholder support — need to build alignment** → coalition-mapping
+- **Team behaving in ways that are hard to understand or predict** → dynamics-analysis
+- **Behavior seems misaligned with stated goals — incentives might be wrong** → incentive-analysis
+- **Unsure who actually decides or influences decisions** → power-mapping
+- **Unclear** → power-mapping; understanding who has power usually reveals the incentives, dynamics, and coalition targets
+
+## Confirm Direction
+
+After diagnosing which tool fits, present the recommendation before executing:
+
+> My read: **[diagnosed tool]** — one sentence on why it fits.
+
+- **A) Yes, run that tool**
+- **B) Show me all options** — list every skill in this category with one-line descriptions
+- **C) Quick version** — lighter-weight alternative for this situation, if one exists
+- **D) Re-diagnose** — describe the situation differently for a second read
+
+Wait for their selection before proceeding.
+
+---
+
+## Coalition Mapping
+
+*Maps who needs to be aligned and how to build the coalition a proposal needs.*
+
+Identify all stakeholders. For each: are they currently (1) supporters, (2) neutral, (3) opponents, or (4) unknown? For neutral and unknown: what would move them to support? For opponents: what is their actual objection, and can it be addressed? Identify the minimum coalition needed for the proposal to succeed. Map the path to building it.
+
+**Output:** Stakeholder map by current position, minimum viable coalition, path to building it, and the blockers most worth addressing.
+
+---
+
+## Dynamics Analysis
+
+*Identifies group psychology shaping a discussion or team.*
+
+Look for: (1) Groupthink — are dissenting views being suppressed? (2) Status dynamics — are contributions being evaluated by who made them, not what they are? (3) Psychological safety — do people feel safe to say what they actually think? (4) Coalition formation — are subgroups forming with different agendas? (5) Silence patterns — who never speaks, and why? Group dynamics shape outcomes more than individuals realize.
+
+**Output:** Dynamics inventory — which patterns are present, their specific manifestation, and the interventions that address each.
+
+---
+
+## Incentive Analysis
+
+*Maps the actual incentives driving behavior.*
+
+Stated motivations and real incentive structures often diverge. Ask: what does the system actually reward? What are people measured on? What do they fear? What behaviors does this structure select for over time? The most reliable predictor of behavior is not what people say they want, but what the system they operate in rewards. Follow the incentives.
+
+**Output:** Actual incentive map — what the system rewards, what it punishes, how that explains current behavior, and what would need to change to change behavior.
+
+---
+
+## Power Mapping
+
+*Maps who holds formal authority, informal influence, and gatekeeping power.*
+
+Distinguish types of power: (1) Formal authority — who can officially approve or block, (2) Informal influence — who shapes thinking without formal authority, (3) Gatekeeping — who controls access or information flow, (4) Expertise power — whose judgment others defer to. For each power holder: what do they want? What do they fear? How does this affect what's possible?
+
+**Output:** Power map across all four types. For each power holder: their position on the relevant issue and how to work with or around them.

package/skills/social-coalition-mapping/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+---
+name: social-coalition-mapping
+description: "Maps who needs to be aligned, who already is, and how to build the coalition a proposal needs to succeed. Triggers: 'coalition building', 'who do I need to get on board', 'map the support', 'build alignment', 'who will support this', 'who will block this'."
+---
+
+# Coalition Mapping
+
+Proposals fail not because they are wrong, but because they lack the support needed to move. Coalition mapping makes the social landscape explicit: who is already on board, who is opposed, who is persuadable, and what sequence of engagement gives the best chance of success.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Define the Required Support**
+What does success require? Formal approval from whom? Informal buy-in from whom? What is the minimum needed for the proposal to move?
+
+**Step 2: List All Relevant Stakeholders**
+Everyone who could affect whether this succeeds — including those who are currently uninvolved.
+
+**Step 3: Map Current Stance and Intensity**
+For each stakeholder: current position (Supportive / Neutral / Resistant / Unknown) and intensity (Strong / Mild).
+
+**Step 4: Analyse Supportive Stakeholders**
+Who does each supporter influence? Whose support can they bring along? How can they be activated rather than staying passive?
+
+**Step 5: Analyse Resistant Stakeholders**
+What is the specific objection driving resistance — not what you assume, but what you know or can find out? What would genuinely move them? What would they need to be true?
+
+**Step 6: Identify the Minimum Viable Coalition**
+What is the smallest set of stakeholders that, if aligned, makes success likely? Focus energy on this set first.
+
+**Step 7: Design the Engagement Sequence**
+Who should be approached first? Whose support makes others more likely to join? Whose endorsement unlocks a key gatekeeper?
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Critical allies only** — who must be on board without whom this fails
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Stakeholder Stance Map
+| Stakeholder | Current Stance | Intensity | Influence Over Others |
+|-------------|---------------|-----------|----------------------|
+| ... | Supportive / Neutral / Resistant / Unknown | Strong / Mild | [Who they influence] |
+
+### Minimum Viable Coalition
+Name the core set and explain why their alignment is sufficient for success.
+
+### Engagement Sequence
+1. [First contact — why them first]
+2. [Second — whose support they unlock]
+3. [Continue...]
+
+### What Moves Resistant Stakeholders
+| Stakeholder | Specific Objection | What Would Move Them |
+|-------------|-------------------|---------------------|
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+The engagement sequence matters as much as the coalition map — the order in which you build support shapes whether the coalition holds or fragments under pressure.

package/skills/social-dynamics-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+---
+name: social-dynamics-analysis
+description: "Identifies group psychology shaping a discussion or team — groupthink, status dynamics, coalition formation, psychological safety. Triggers: 'group dynamics', 'why does this team behave like this', 'groupthink check', 'why won't people speak up', 'meeting dynamics', 'team dysfunction'."
+---
+
+# Group Dynamics Analysis
+
+Groups develop collective behaviours that are invisible from inside them. Premature consensus, status-based deference, and psychological unsafety all degrade decision quality — and they are self-reinforcing. Naming the dynamic is the first step to changing it.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Observe or Recall Group Behaviour**
+Work from specific, concrete instances of how the group acts — not general impressions. What actually happened in the last meeting or decision? What was said? What was not said?
+
+**Step 2: Check for Groupthink Signals**
+- Premature consensus — agreement reached without exploring disagreement
+- Self-censorship — individuals privately disagree but don't speak
+- Illusion of unanimity — silence treated as agreement
+- Pressure on dissenters — challenge is met with discomfort or social cost
+- No contingency planning — "what if we're wrong?" is not asked
+
+**Step 3: Assess Status Dynamics**
+Who speaks most, and does speaking time correlate with expertise or with seniority? Who is deferred to regardless of subject matter? Whose ideas get attributed to someone else? Status often drives decisions more than merit.
+
+**Step 4: Assess Psychological Safety**
+Do people raise concerns, admit uncertainty, and challenge ideas — or do they signal alignment and hedge? Rate: high / medium / low.
+
+**Step 5: Identify Coalition Patterns**
+Are subgroups forming? Are decisions being pre-made outside formal meetings? Are there recurring alliances or persistent tensions?
+
+**Step 6: Name the Dominant Dynamic**
+Which single dynamic is most affecting decision quality right now? That is where intervention has the highest leverage.
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Dominant dynamic only** — the group pattern that most shapes this situation
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Groupthink Signals
+| Signal | Present / Absent | Evidence |
+|--------|-----------------|----------|
+| Premature consensus | ... | ... |
+| Self-censorship | ... | ... |
+| Illusion of unanimity | ... | ... |
+| Pressure on dissenters | ... | ... |
+| No contingency planning | ... | ... |
+
+### Status Dynamics
+Describe who dominates, who defers, and where status overrides expertise.
+
+### Psychological Safety Assessment
+**Rating:** High / Medium / Low
+**Evidence:** Specific behaviours supporting this rating.
+
+### Coalition Patterns
+- [Subgroups, pre-meeting decisions, recurring alliances or tensions]
+
+### Dominant Dynamic and Recommended Intervention
+**Dominant dynamic:** [Name it clearly]
+**Recommended intervention:** [Specific, concrete action to shift the dynamic]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Run this before a high-stakes decision or after a meeting that felt wrong but hard to name. The intervention should be structural where possible — changing the process, not asking people to behave differently.

package/skills/social-incentive-analysis/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+---
+name: social-incentive-analysis
+description: "Maps the actual incentives driving behaviour — distinguishing stated motivations from the real incentive structures that shape what people do. Triggers: 'incentive analysis', 'why are they doing this', 'what are the actual incentives', 'follow the incentives', 'what does the system reward'."
+---
+
+# Incentive Analysis
+
+Most behaviour that looks irrational is perfectly rational given the actual incentives. The problem is that systems are designed around intended incentives while people respond to actual ones. Finding the gap between the two explains what is happening and points to what would change it.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Describe the Behaviour**
+Name the specific behaviour to explain or change. Be concrete — not "people aren't engaged" but "engineers don't attend architecture reviews and don't comment on RFCs."
+
+**Step 2: Map What the System Actually Rewards**
+Not what it is supposed to reward — what actually gets people promoted, praised, defended, or protected? Look at recent promotions, public praise, and what leadership visibly prioritises.
+
+**Step 3: Map What the System Actually Punishes**
+What leads to criticism, risk, political cost, or reduced standing? What do people avoid doing, even when they believe it is the right thing?
+
+**Step 4: Rationality Check**
+Given the actual rewards and punishments identified in Steps 2–3: is the observed behaviour rational? In most cases it is. If it is rational, that is important — it means you cannot change the behaviour without changing the incentives.
+
+**Step 5: Identify the Incentive-Behaviour Gap**
+Where do the intended incentives (what the system claims to reward) diverge from the actual incentives (what it truly rewards)? This gap is where dysfunction lives.
+
+**Step 6: Recommend Incentive Changes**
+For each problematic behaviour: what specific incentive change would most directly address it? Focus on what the system rewards and punishes, not on asking for attitude changes.
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Misaligned incentives only** — where actual incentives diverge from stated goals
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Behaviour Under Analysis
+[Concrete description]
+
+### What the System Actually Rewards
+- [Specific reward mechanisms — promotions, praise, visibility, safety]
+
+### What the System Actually Punishes
+- [Specific punishment mechanisms — criticism, risk, cost, exclusion]
+
+### Rationality Check
+**Is the behaviour rational given these incentives?** Yes / No / Partially.
+**Explanation:** Why the behaviour makes sense (or doesn't) given the actual incentive structure.
+
+### Incentive-Behaviour Gap
+| Intended Incentive | Actual Incentive | Gap |
+|-------------------|-----------------|-----|
+| ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Recommended Incentive Changes
+| Problematic Behaviour | Incentive Change That Would Address It |
+|----------------------|----------------------------------------|
+| ... | ... |
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Incentive analysis is most powerful when it reveals that a problem is not one of attitude or effort but of structure. Change the structure — not the people.

package/skills/social-power-mapping/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: social-power-mapping
+description: "Maps who holds power — formal authority, informal influence, gatekeeping, expertise — and how it flows. Triggers: 'power map', 'who has power here', 'who actually decides', 'map the politics', 'who do I need to get on board', 'who are the gatekeepers'."
+---
+
+# Power Mapping
+
+Org charts describe formal authority. Power is different. It includes informal influence (whose opinion shifts decisions), gatekeeping (who controls access), and expertise (whose knowledge others depend on). A proposal that ignores actual power distribution will fail even if it is correct.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: List Relevant Actors**
+Name every person, role, or group that could affect or be affected by the situation. Include those who seem peripheral — they are sometimes the most important.
+
+**Step 2: Map Each Actor Across Four Power Dimensions**
+- **Formal authority** — what can they officially decide or approve?
+- **Informal influence** — who listens to them? Whose decisions do they shape?
+- **Gatekeeping** — what access, resources, or information do they control?
+- **Expertise** — what knowledge gives them authority that others defer to?
+
+**Step 3: Map Influence Flows**
+Who influences whom? Who defers to whom in practice (which may differ significantly from the org chart)? Draw or describe the actual influence network.
+
+**Step 4: Find Power Gaps**
+Who needs to be on board but hasn't been engaged? Who could block progress but hasn't been considered? These are vulnerabilities in any plan.
+
+**Step 5: Identify Invisible Stakeholders**
+Who is affected by the situation but holds little or no power to shape it? Their interests may need explicit protection.
+
+---
+
+## Human Check-in
+
+Before proceeding, ask the user:
+
+**How do you want to run this?**
+
+- **A) Full analysis** — complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
+- **B) Key findings only** — bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
+- **C) Informal power only** — influence not visible in the formal structure
+- **D) Refine the framing** — adjust what we're analyzing before starting
+
+Proceed based on their choice.
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Actor Inventory
+| Actor | Formal Authority | Informal Influence | Gatekeeping | Expertise Power |
+|-------|-----------------|-------------------|-------------|-----------------|
+| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
+
+### Influence Map
+Describe the key influence flows: who shapes whom, where deference occurs, and where the org chart diverges from practice.
+
+### Power Gaps
+- [Actor who needs to be engaged but hasn't been — and why they matter]
+
+### Invisible / Excluded Stakeholders
+- [Affected parties without power — note whether their interests need explicit advocacy]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Update the power map when the situation changes significantly — power is not static. The most important finding is usually the gap between the org chart and actual influence.

package/skills/strategy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+---
+name: strategy
+description: "Routes to the right strategy skill for any adversarial or competitive reasoning situation. Triggers: 'how do I beat X', 'competitive strategy', 'outmaneuver', 'I'm up against', 'position myself', 'what's my play here', any situation involving competitive pressure, adversarial dynamics, negotiation, or resource-constrained contest."
+---
+
+# Strategy
+
+Sun Tzu's central insight: "The victorious warrior wins first and then goes to war, while the defeated warrior goes to war first and then seeks to win." Strategy is what happens before the contest. It is the discipline of creating conditions — position, intelligence, timing, alliances — so that when the contest begins, the outcome is already determined.
+
+The strategy skills in this category draw on Sun Tzu (*The Art of War*), Clausewitz (*On War*), Miyamoto Musashi (*Book of Five Rings*), and competitive theory. They are not about aggression. They are about reading competitive contexts clearly and acting with economy, intelligence, and timing.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+Read the user's situation carefully. Identify which strategic challenge is primary, then present the options below — briefly and specifically — and ask which fits. Execute immediately on selection.
+
+**Reading the landscape — where should I compete, and where should I avoid?**
+→ `/strategy-terrain` — Maps available positions, identifies favorable and dangerous ground, tells you which battles are worth fighting.
+
+**What do I actually know, and what am I assuming?**
+→ `/strategy-intelligence` — Audits what you know vs. what you're assuming about yourself and your opponent. Closes the intelligence gaps that cause strategic failures.
+
+**When should I act — now, or wait?**
+→ `/strategy-timing` — Analyzes conditions favoring action vs. patience. Reads your opponent's rhythm. Identifies trigger conditions for the right moment.
+
+**How do I do more with less — I'm outgunned?**
+→ `/strategy-force-economy` — Finds the minimum intervention that achieves the objective. Identifies leverage points where a small input creates a large output.
+
+**How do I create a position that's hard to attack?**
+→ `/strategy-positioning` — Builds the conditions for unassailability before the contest. What must be true for a rational opponent to choose a different arena?
+
+**What should I reveal vs. conceal — information asymmetry?**
+→ `/strategy-deception` — Manages information asymmetry in legitimate competitive contexts. Protects your position; identifies what your opponent may be concealing from you.
+
+**What does winning actually mean here?**
+→ `/strategy-victory` — Defines victory before the contest begins. Prevents the pyrrhic trap: winning in ways that lose the larger goal.
+
+**Who do I need on my side — coalition and alliance?**
+→ `/strategy-alliance` — Maps parties, identifies natural allies and swing parties, assesses alliance stability. Alliances built on shared interest vs. goodwill alone.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+Present the 3–4 most relevant options for the user's specific situation (not all eight every time). For each option, one sentence on why it fits. Ask which they want. Execute immediately on selection without further preamble.
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+If the objective itself is unclear, start with `/strategy-victory` — you cannot select terrain, timing, or force economy without knowing what winning means. If the situation is genuinely complex, terrain is usually the right first move: it establishes the ground on which all other choices operate.
+
+Strategy skills are for competitive and adversarial contexts. For purely cooperative situations where parties share objectives, the decision and systems categories are more appropriate.

package/skills/strategy-alliance/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+---
+name: strategy-alliance
+description: "Maps parties, identifies natural allies and swing parties, and assesses alliance stability for coalition-building in competitive contexts. Triggers: 'build alliances', 'coalition building', 'who are my allies', 'manage stakeholders', 'political coalition', 'alliance strategy', 'who do I need on my side', 'get people on board', 'organizational politics'."
+---
+
+# Strategy: Alliance
+
+Machiavelli's counter-intuitive warning in *The Prince*: alliances built on goodwill are fragile; alliances built on shared interest are durable. A prince who relies on gratitude will be disappointed the moment the interest calculus changes. A prince who builds alliances on the foundation of mutual benefit will hold them through adversity because both parties have a reason — independent of sentiment — to maintain the relationship.
+
+Sun Tzu's operational principle complements this: "Know the local situation." Before deciding who to ally with, who to neutralize, and who to oppose, you must know what each party actually wants — not what they say they want, not what you hope they want, but what their actual interest is in this situation. Misreading a party's interest and trying to ally with them on incorrect assumptions produces a fragile alliance at best and an active opponent at worst.
+
+The most common alliance error is the inverse: trying to win everyone over. Alliances have a cost — they create obligations, signal positions, and consume relationship capital. The discipline is identifying which alliances are necessary, which neutralizations are sufficient, and which parties are simply not worth the investment. Alliances managed poorly — obligations created without the support they were supposed to purchase — are worse than no alliances. They drain resources and signal weakness.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Party map**
+List everyone involved in or affected by this situation. For each: what do they actually want (not what they say), what is their current position relative to your objective, and what is their capacity to help or hurt you?
+
+**Step 2: Natural allies**
+Parties whose interests align closely with yours without requiring significant trade-offs. Their success and yours point in the same direction. These require minimal persuasion — the main task is making the alignment explicit and activating it. Natural allies should be your first moves.
+
+**Step 3: Swing parties**
+Parties who could go either way. What would it take to align them? Is the cost of alignment (concessions, time, reciprocal obligations) worth the support gained? For each swing party: name the minimum offering that tips them, and whether that offer is actually available to you.
+
+**Step 4: Parties to neutralize**
+Parties who might oppose you but needn't be actively won over — just prevented from acting against you. Neutralization is different from alliance: you are not asking for support, only for non-interference. This is often cheaper and more achievable than active alignment. What would each potential opponent need to remain neutral?
+
+**Step 5: Alliance stability**
+What holds each proposed alliance together? Shared interest (durable), reciprocal obligation (moderately durable), goodwill (fragile), fear (durable while the fear holds but brittle on its removal). Apply Machiavelli's test: if the interest calculus changed tomorrow, would this party still be with you? Name every alliance that fails this test.
+
+**Step 6: Machiavelli test**
+For each alliance being proposed: is it based on genuine shared interest, or on the assumption of goodwill? Goodwill alliances require active maintenance and may not hold under pressure. Name them, and either identify the underlying interest that makes them durable or build in contingency.
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Alliance Map
+
+**Party Inventory**
+
+| Party | Actual interest | Current position | Capacity |
+|---|---|---|---|
+| [Name] | [What they actually want] | [Aligned / Neutral / Opposed] | [High / Medium / Low] |
+
+**Natural Allies**
+[Parties with genuine interest alignment — activation approach for each]
+
+**Swing Parties and Alignment Conditions**
+[Each swing party, the minimum offering that tips them, and whether that offering is available]
+
+**Parties to Neutralize**
+[Potential opponents — what they need to remain non-interfering, and the cost of that neutralization]
+
+**Alliance Stability Assessment**
+[For each proposed alliance: what holds it together, Machiavelli test result, stability rating]
+
+**Recommended Structure**
+[Which alliances to build, which parties to neutralize, which to deprioritize — sequenced by priority and feasibility]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Alliances multiply effective force — pair with `/strategy-force-economy` when the question is how to achieve an objective against a stronger opponent. Knowing what parties actually want requires intelligence work — pair with `/strategy-intelligence` when the party map is uncertain. Use `/strategy-terrain` to understand which parties hold positions of structural advantage that would make them particularly valuable allies or particularly dangerous opponents.

package/skills/strategy-deception/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+---
+name: strategy-deception
+description: "Manages information asymmetry in legitimate competitive contexts — what to protect, what impressions work in your favor, and what your opponent may be concealing from you. Triggers: 'conceal my position', 'information asymmetry', 'misdirection', 'what should I reveal vs conceal', 'negotiation deception', 'strategic ambiguity', 'manage what they know about me', 'read their signals'."
+---
+
+# Strategy: Deception
+
+Sun Tzu's most provocative statement: "All warfare is based on deception." Its operational meaning is not that lying is the path to victory. It is that controlling what your opponent believes about you is as important as controlling what you do. A general who moves in predictable, transparent ways gives the opponent full information and eliminates the element of surprise. A general who manages information deliberately — signaling strength where they are strong, concealing weakness, appearing where unexpected — compounds their effective advantage at no additional resource cost.
+
+In legitimate competitive contexts — negotiation, market positioning, competitive product strategy, organizational politics — managing information asymmetry is standard practice. Revealing your walk-away point in a negotiation, publishing your roadmap before it's locked, announcing your strategy before executing it: each of these transfers advantage to the other side. The discipline is not dishonesty; it is choosing what to make visible and what to protect.
+
+One structural constraint governs everything: **whatever you conceal must be consistently concealed.** A single inconsistency destroys the deception more efficiently than disclosure. Inconsistency broadcasts that you are managing information — which is worse than transparency. The cost of a deception that collapses mid-contest is higher than the cost of not deploying it at all.
+
+> **Important:** This skill applies to legitimate competitive contexts where information management is appropriate — commercial negotiation, competitive strategy, organizational positioning, market timing. It does not apply to fraud, manipulation of parties in positions of vulnerability, or deception that causes disproportionate harm to people who cannot protect themselves.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: Information to protect**
+What knowledge of your position or intentions, if known by the opponent, would disadvantage you? Be specific. Not "our strategy" (too vague) but "the fact that we have no alternative vendor and our current contract expires in 60 days." List each piece of protective information separately.
+
+**Step 2: Advantageous false impressions**
+What beliefs, if held by your opponent, would work in your favor? These must be plausible — impressions that could arise from your actual position, not fabrications that require active lying. Example: "that we have multiple alternatives in play" (if you could plausibly have them), not "that we have a signed term sheet" (if you don't).
+
+**Step 3: Credible signals**
+What actions or statements could plausibly create those impressions? The signal must be consistent with your real position or the deception collapses on contact. Actions are more credible than statements. What are you already doing that, if visible, creates the right impression? What could you do that is authentic and creates the desired signal?
+
+**Step 4: Consistency check**
+Is what you're concealing consistently concealed across every surface — every team member, every document, every signal? Identify the specific consistency risks. Who on your side might inadvertently breach the information barrier? What artifacts could expose it?
+
+**Step 5: Counter-deception**
+What might your opponent be concealing or signaling falsely? What are they trying to make you believe? Apply the same framework in reverse: what impressions are they managing, what would they want you to assume, and where do their signals feel too clean or too consistent to be the full picture?
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Deception Analysis
+
+**Information to Protect**
+[Specific knowledge that would disadvantage you if known — listed item by item]
+
+**Advantageous False Impressions**
+[Beliefs your opponent holding would benefit you — each must be plausible from your actual position]
+
+**Credible Signals**
+[Actions or statements that create those impressions — with consistency rationale for each]
+
+**Consistency Check**
+[Where the information barrier could fail — team risks, artifact risks, behavioral inconsistencies to watch]
+
+**Counter-Deception Assessment**
+[What your opponent may be concealing, what impressions they're managing, where their signals are too clean]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Deception requires accurate intelligence to work — you cannot manage an opponent's beliefs without knowing what they currently believe. Pair with `/strategy-intelligence` before running this analysis. For the signals component, game-theory's signaling analysis provides a more formal framework for credible commitment signals when the context warrants it. Pair with `/strategy-positioning` to understand whether the position you're protecting is strong enough to be worth protecting — concealing a weak position buys time but does not change the underlying situation.

package/skills/strategy-force-economy/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+---
+name: strategy-force-economy
+description: "Finds the minimum intervention that achieves the objective — especially when you're outgunned or under-resourced. Triggers: 'do more with less', 'force economy', 'we're under-resourced', 'asymmetric advantage', 'outgunned', 'leverage point', 'how do we win when they have more', 'we can't outspend them', 'small team big problem'."
+---
+
+# Strategy: Force Economy
+
+Sun Tzu's highest strategic achievement is the victory that costs nothing — where the opponent's resistance collapses without direct contest: "Supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." This is not passivity. It is the discipline of identifying where a small input creates a large output — where the terrain, timing, information asymmetry, or a single relationship multiplies your effective force without requiring you to match the opponent unit for unit.
+
+The force economy principle asks: what is the minimum intervention that achieves the objective? Not merely because resources must be conserved (though they must), but because the maximum-force approach almost always generates the maximum resistance. Brute force signals intention, consumes capital, and invites a symmetrical response from an opponent with more of everything. The indirect approach — Basil Liddell Hart's formulation — achieves more by creating the conditions in which less is required.
+
+The discipline is finding the leverage point: the node in the system where a small input produces a disproportionate output. Not all nodes are equal. Most effort has roughly proportional effect. Leverage points are structural exceptions — and finding them before acting is the core skill.
+
+---
+
+## Your Process
+
+**Step 1: State the objective**
+Define what success looks like clearly and specifically. Vague objectives produce vague force economy analyses. What must be true for this to be considered won?
+
+**Step 2: Maximum-force approach**
+What does the brute-force path look like? If you matched the opponent resource-for-resource and attacked directly, what would that cost in time, money, relationships, and attention? Name the full cost. This is your baseline.
+
+**Step 3: Minimum-force alternatives**
+What approaches achieve the same objective at lower cost? Generate at least three alternatives — not as compromises but as genuine paths. Consider: approaches that go around rather than through, approaches that use the opponent's own momentum, approaches that make the contested ground irrelevant.
+
+**Step 4: Leverage points**
+Where in this system does a small input create a large output? Candidates: a key relationship that unlocks others, an information advantage that reshapes the opponent's behavior, a timing move that creates conditions others must respond to, a position that creates a cascade of favorable effects without requiring follow-on force.
+
+**Step 5: Non-contest approaches**
+Can the objective be achieved without direct competition at all? Options: go around (find uncontested ground), ally with (add force through alliance), make irrelevant (change the game so the contested position no longer matters), wait (until the opponent's overextension creates the opening).
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+### Force Economy Analysis
+
+**Objective**
+[Specific statement of what winning looks like]
+
+**Maximum-Force Approach**
+[What the brute-force path costs — time, money, relationships, attention, risk]
+
+**Minimum-Force Alternatives**
+1. [Alternative 1 — approach and estimated cost]
+2. [Alternative 2 — approach and estimated cost]
+3. [Alternative 3 — approach and estimated cost]
+
+**Leverage Point**
+[The single highest-leverage node — small input, large output — and why it has this property]
+
+**Non-Contest Approaches**
+[Options that achieve the objective without direct competition — go around, ally with, make irrelevant, wait]
+
+**Recommended Approach**
+[The recommended path with resource estimate and the reasoning for why this achieves the objective at acceptable cost]
+
+---
+
+## Notes
+
+Good position reduces force required — pair with `/strategy-positioning` to understand whether investment in positioning now reduces force cost later. Alliances multiply effective force — pair with `/strategy-alliance` when the leverage point involves bringing others in. Force economy analysis is most powerful when the objective is clear; if it isn't, run `/strategy-victory` first to establish what you're actually trying to achieve.