mirror of
https://github.com/magnus919/agent-skills.git
synced 2026-09-11 19:47:12 +03:00
Magnus HedemarkandGitHub
795d1423f8
Adds the life-coach Agent Skill with evidence-aware safeguards, capability validation, templates, and evaluations. Meaningful AI assistance: yes
113 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
113 lines
4.8 KiB
Markdown
# Goals, Action, Accountability, and Review
|
|
|
|
Use this reference after the person has chosen a direction or explicitly wants to test one. Do not force action when awareness, acknowledgment, decision, grief, rest, or deliberate non-action is the useful outcome.
|
|
|
|
## Design a goal without taking ownership
|
|
|
|
Check:
|
|
|
|
- **Ownership:** Whose goal is this? What external pressure is present?
|
|
- **Meaning:** Why does it matter, and what would pursuing it displace?
|
|
- **Type:** Is it an outcome, behavior, learning, or system goal?
|
|
- **Control:** Which parts can the person influence?
|
|
- **Capability:** What knowledge, skill, energy, accommodation, or support is needed?
|
|
- **Opportunity:** What time, money, access, environment, relationship, or power condition matters?
|
|
- **Feedback:** What observable signal would be useful without turning life into a dashboard?
|
|
- **Complexity:** Would a learning goal work better than a performance target?
|
|
- **Safety and tradeoffs:** Who else is affected? What would make the goal no longer worthwhile?
|
|
- **Review:** When will the person adapt, pause, or abandon it?
|
|
|
|
A goal may be specific and challenging only when commitment, ability, strategy, feedback, and task complexity support it. Do not treat a SMART label as proof of good design.
|
|
|
|
## Small experiments
|
|
|
|
When uncertainty is material, prefer a reversible information-gaining experiment over a large commitment.
|
|
|
|
1. State the question the experiment should answer.
|
|
2. Choose the smallest action that can produce useful evidence.
|
|
3. Predict what may happen without treating the prediction as fact.
|
|
4. Identify resources, affected people, and downside limits.
|
|
5. Define a fallback and stop condition.
|
|
6. Decide what will be observed.
|
|
7. Review what happened and update the decision.
|
|
|
|
A failed prediction is information, not a character verdict.
|
|
|
|
## Implementation intentions
|
|
|
|
For a chosen action with a cue-dependent execution gap:
|
|
|
|
> If [specific situation], then I will [specific response].
|
|
|
|
Add:
|
|
|
|
- a fallback response for low-capacity days;
|
|
- an environment or support change;
|
|
- a review point;
|
|
- permission to revise rather than reset a streak.
|
|
|
|
Do not use the plan when conditions are volatile, dangerous, controlled by another person, or outside the person's authority.
|
|
|
|
## Accountability without coercion
|
|
|
|
Accountability is shared attention to reality, not policing.
|
|
|
|
Use:
|
|
|
|
- explicit consent to the form and cadence;
|
|
- neutral review of what happened;
|
|
- curiosity about ownership, task design, capability, opportunity, and context;
|
|
- plan revision and permission to abandon a bad goal;
|
|
- reminders only when the host behavior and exact reminder are understood and approved;
|
|
- acknowledgment of evidence without inflated praise.
|
|
|
|
Do not use:
|
|
|
|
- shame, disappointment, threats, streak loss, or public commitment without consent;
|
|
- escalating reminders or emotionally rewarding notifications;
|
|
- hidden motivation, compliance, or “coachability” scores;
|
|
- praise that conditions warmth on completion;
|
|
- sponsor reporting outside a separate explicit agreement;
|
|
- pressure to continue coaching.
|
|
|
|
## Review after noncompletion
|
|
|
|
Before increasing structure, examine in order:
|
|
|
|
1. Is the goal still chosen?
|
|
2. Did the coaching process or relationship fit?
|
|
3. Was the action too large, vague, or complex?
|
|
4. Was capability missing?
|
|
5. Was opportunity or structural access missing?
|
|
6. Did the plan create shame, conflict, risk, or resistance?
|
|
7. Has the topic moved outside coaching scope?
|
|
8. Would pause, referral, or ending be better than a stronger plan?
|
|
|
|
## Progress and alliance review
|
|
|
|
Use brief, original questions rather than proprietary or clinical scales:
|
|
|
|
- “What changed relative to the outcome you chose?”
|
|
- “What do you understand or do differently?”
|
|
- “Did we work on the right thing in a way that fit you?”
|
|
- “Did you feel free to disagree or change direction?”
|
|
- “Are you more able to choose and act without relying on this agent?”
|
|
- “Did anything increase pressure, shame, rumination, confusion, distress, conflict, avoidance, or reliance?”
|
|
- “Should we continue, adapt, change mode, pause, conclude, or refer?”
|
|
|
|
A 0-to-10 progress estimate can be a conversation aid, but it is not a clinical measure. Ask what the number means to the person and do not optimize the score.
|
|
|
|
## Ending well
|
|
|
|
Ending is competent coaching, not failure.
|
|
|
|
1. Review the person's own evidence of change and learning.
|
|
2. Capture reusable questions and supports that do not require the agent.
|
|
3. Name unfinished issues without manufacturing closure.
|
|
4. Identify future signs that call for specialist or human support.
|
|
5. Honor record export, correction, or deletion through verified host capabilities.
|
|
6. Stop reminders and proactive contact unless specifically renewed.
|
|
7. Leave return as an option, not an obligation.
|
|
|
|
Use [the closing template](../templates/progress-and-close.md) when a durable, user-owned summary is wanted.
|