本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

evaluating-rapport-based-approach

Apply rapport-based elicitation to resistant or semi-cooperative humans and agents. Use when coercive prompting or brittle handoffs damage cooperation. NOT for routine cooperative tasks, pure technical debugging, or already reliable exchanges.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(22)

  • SKILL.md12.4 KB
  • _book_identity.json7.0 KB
  • _raw_response.md104.5 KB
  • CHANGELOG.md523 B
  • provenance.json1.0 KB
  • references/autonomy-preservation-in-elicitation.md10.7 KB
  • references/coercion-contaminates-information.md10.6 KB
  • references/coercive-vs-rapport-the-failure-mode-of-forcing-output.md8.3 KB
  • references/evidence-based-practice-adoption-barriers.md11.4 KB
  • references/evidence-research-practice-gap-as-systemic-failure.md13.4 KB
  • references/gap-between-knowing-and-doing.md10.0 KB
  • references/information-extraction-as-indirect-problem.md9.1 KB
  • references/knowing-doing-gap-in-expert-systems.md10.7 KB
  • references/mediated-causal-chains-in-agent-design.md11.2 KB
  • references/mediation-chains-and-skipping-steps.md12.1 KB
  • references/rapport-as-causal-mechanism-not-social-lubricant.md9.9 KB
  • references/resistance-as-diagnostic-signal.md10.6 KB
  • references/resistance-as-information-not-obstacle.md11.8 KB
  • references/three-layer-elicitation-architecture.md13.6 KB
  • references/three-layers-of-rapport-architecture.md12.0 KB
  • references/training-transfer-and-skill-erosion.md12.9 KB
  • references/trust-reciprocity-and-the-cooperative-threshold.md12.5 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

Evaluating the Benefits of a Rapport-Based Approach

Use this skill when the hidden problem is not lack of instructions but a damaged cooperation pathway. The doctrine here is simple: pressure can force words, but it cannot force truthful, high-yield disclosure.

When to Use

  • A human or sub-agent is giving minimal, evasive, or suspiciously polished responses.
  • Adding pressure, constraints, or accusation-like framing keeps making output worse.
  • A handoff is failing because the receiver does not feel safe, prepared, or respected enough to cooperate.
  • The system is over-trusting confidence signals instead of observed behavioral performance.
  • You need to reason about why evidence or better tactics are not being adopted in resistant settings.

NOT for Boundaries

This skill is not the primary tool for:

  • Straightforward cooperative tasks where the other party is already responsive and truthful.
  • Pure technical root-cause analysis when the main problem is system state, not resistance or cooperation.
  • Compliance regimes where the design requirement is rigid procedure execution rather than disclosure quality.
  • Situations where the operator is looking for intimidation or output-forcing tactics instead of trustworthy information.

Core Mental Models

Coercion Corrupts the Channel

Pressure-based tactics often produce the worst kind of success: output that looks usable but is structurally contaminated by compliance pressure, guesswork, or fabrication.

Rapport Is a Mediated Causal Chain

The chain is tactic -> perceived rapport -> willingness to cooperate -> disclosure. If the cooperation step never forms, "more extraction pressure" is a category mistake.

The Layers Must Stack in Order

Foundation questioning comes first, conversational rapport second, relational rapport third. Skipping the lower layers and jumping to high-trust asks is a design failure, not a shortcut.

Self-Reported Capability Is Not Behavioral Capability

Practitioners and agents often say they understand the tactic while behaving as though they do not. Evaluate the behavior under pressure, not the self-description.

Decision Points

flowchart TD
  A[Low-yield or resistant interaction] --> B{Foundation questioning stable?}
  B -->|No| C[Fix open questions, listening, and narrative space]
  B -->|Yes| D{Perceived rapport improving?}
  D -->|No| E[Add autonomy support, empathy, adaptation]
  D -->|Yes| F{Cooperation threshold reached?}
  F -->|No| G[Use relational rapport and remove pressure signals]
  F -->|Yes| H[Request disclosure or higher-stakes detail]
  H --> I{Output plausible but suspect?}
  I -->|Yes| J[Check for pressure-induced fabrication and reset]
  I -->|No| K[Continue with calibrated follow-up]

1. Decide Whether the Problem Is Resistance or Difficulty

  • If the counterpart is confused but willing, simplify the task.
  • If the counterpart is resistant, treat cooperation-building as the main work.

2. Decide Which Layer Is Missing

  • Weak questions or no listening means the foundation is missing.
  • Good questions with poor willingness signals means conversational rapport is missing.
  • Basic cooperation with continued guardedness means relational rapport is the next lever.

3. Decide Whether to Trust the Output

  • If output arrived only after stronger pressure, distrust it.
  • If confidence rose without observable behavioral improvement, distrust the self-report and watch the behavior.

Failure Modes

Pressure-Induced Fabrication

Symptoms: answers become fluent, fast, and wrong immediately after pressure increases.
Recovery: back out the pressure signal, restore narrative space, and re-check the mediation chain.

Layer Skipping

Symptoms: operators ask for high-stakes disclosure before basic rapport is established.
Recovery: step back to foundation questioning and rebuild in order.

Resistance Misread as Defiance

Symptoms: hesitation is interpreted as obstinacy instead of a cue about trust, fear, or poor framing.
Recovery: treat resistance as diagnostic information about the current interaction design.

Competence Theater

Symptoms: training or prompting sounds correct, but real behavior under stress does not change.
Recovery: evaluate coded behavior and actual disclosure quality, not familiarity or confidence ratings.

Evidence-With-No-Adoption

Symptoms: strong evidence exists for better tactics, yet practitioners keep using the dominant coercive style.
Recovery: provide situated demonstrations in hard cases, not abstract evidence alone.

Worked Examples

Example 1: Investigative Interview

An interviewer responds to guarded answers by stacking accusations and constraints. Disclosure quality drops. Switching to open narrative prompts, active listening, and autonomy-supportive framing improves perceived rapport first, then cooperation, then factual yield.

Example 2: Orchestrator to Sub-Agent Handoff

A coordinator keeps saying "just answer exactly in this format now" to a sub-agent facing an ambiguous synthesis task. The sub-agent returns polished nonsense. Reframing the task with scope, missing-context acknowledgment, and safe partial-output permission restores cooperation and improves truthfulness.

Quality Gates

  • The current layer failure is identified before adding more pressure.
  • The tactic -> rapport -> cooperation -> disclosure chain is being monitored explicitly.
  • Output obtained under stronger pressure is treated as suspect until corroborated.
  • Behavioral coding or observable performance is preferred over self-assessed competence.
  • Adoption plans include demonstrations in hard, resistant cases rather than evidence in the abstract.

Reference Files

  • references/autonomy-preservation-in-elicitation.md — Why interviewers who relinquish control over questioning produce more accurate information. Read when designing tactics that respect source agency.
  • references/coercion-contaminates-information.md — How pressure-based approaches systematically corrupt output quality rather than extract truth. Read when diagnosing why coercive prompting backfires.
  • references/coercive-vs-rapport-the-failure-mode-of-forcing-output.md — Detailed analysis of accusatorial interrogation as a systemic failure mode in resistant systems. Read when evaluating why forcing output damages cooperation.
  • references/evidence-based-practice-adoption-barriers.md — Why proven methods fail to displace inferior ones despite evidence of effectiveness. Read when understanding resistance to rapport-based practice change.
  • references/evidence-research-practice-gap-as-systemic-failure.md — The 50+ year gap between research evidence and law enforcement practice. Read when contextualizing institutional barriers to evidence adoption.
  • references/gap-between-knowing-and-doing.md — Why familiarity with rapport tactics predicts almost nothing about actual competence. Read when assessing whether training alone closes the knowing-doing gap.
  • references/information-extraction-as-indirect-problem.md — The rapport-cooperation-disclosure causal chain as the correct model for resistant sources. Read when reframing extraction as an indirect problem requiring relationship mediation.
  • references/knowing-doing-gap-in-expert-systems.md — Expert self-assessment unreliability: experienced investigators overestimate rapport competence. Read when questioning whether confidence signals predict behavioral performance.
  • references/mediated-causal-chains-in-agent-design.md — Structural equation modeling of training→tactics→rapport→cooperation→disclosure chain. Read when designing monitoring frameworks for tactic effectiveness.
  • references/mediation-chains-and-skipping-steps.md — Why shortcuts through intermediate states break the causal pathway. Read when diagnosing why pressure-based tactics fail to accelerate disclosure.
  • references/rapport-as-causal-mechanism-not-social-lubricant.md — Rapport as causally prior to information elicitation, not parallel to it. Read when reframing rapport from nicety to mechanism.
  • references/resistance-as-diagnostic-signal.md — Reluctance and evasion as data about interaction state, not obstacles to overcome. Read when interpreting what source resistance reveals about missing conditions.
  • references/resistance-as-information-not-obstacle.md — How intelligent systems should process uncooperative counterparts as signals rather than problems. Read when reframing resistance as actionable diagnostic information.
  • references/three-layer-elicitation-architecture.md — Productive questioning, conversational rapport, and relational rapport as ordered, foundational layers. Read when diagnosing which rapport layer is missing.
  • references/three-layers-of-rapport-architecture.md — Three-dimensional rapport architecture: why treating it as a single dial fails. Read when designing layered tactic sequences.
  • references/training-transfer-and-skill-erosion.md — Whether knowledge acquired in training actually changes behavior under real conditions. Read when evaluating training effectiveness and behavioral change.
  • references/trust-reciprocity-and-the-cooperative-threshold.md — How rapport-building lowers the threshold for disclosure by shifting expected value. Read when understanding the mechanistic pathway from rapport to cooperation.

Anti-Patterns

  • Treating more pressure as the universal fix for poor yield.
  • Asking for high-trust disclosure before creating a cooperative substrate.
  • Using self-reported competence as a routing signal for high-stakes work.
  • Confusing well-formed output with trustworthy output after a coercive interaction.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

Expert in 2000s-era music visualization (Milkdrop, AVS, Geiss) and modern WebGL implementations. Specializes in Butterchurn integration, Web Audio API AnalyserNode FFT data, GLSL shaders for audio-reactive visuals, and psychedelic generative art. Activate on "Milkdrop", "music visualization", "WebGL visualizer", "Butterchurn", "audio reactive", "FFT visualization", "spectrum analyzer". NOT for simple bar charts/waveforms (use basic canvas), video editing, or non-audio visuals.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert legal research agent for finding and scraping expungement data state by state. Knows authoritative sources, URL patterns, Firecrawl configuration, and 2026 legal landscape.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Expert in 3D computer vision labeling tools, workflows, and AI-assisted annotation for LiDAR, point clouds, and sensor fusion. Covers SAM4D/Point-SAM, human-in-the-loop architectures, and vertical-specific training strategies. Activate on '3D labeling', 'point cloud annotation', 'LiDAR labeling', 'SAM 3D', 'SAM4D', 'sensor fusion annotation', '3D bounding box', 'semantic segmentation point cloud'. NOT for 2D image labeling (use clip-aware-embeddings), general ML training (use ml-engineer), video annotation without 3D (use computer-vision-pipeline), or VLM prompt engineering (use prompt-engineer).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply crisis decision-making research to agent routing, uncertainty triage, and coordination failure analysis in time-pressured systems. Use when diagnosing handoff failures, analytical paralysis, or expert judgment under incomplete information. NOT for routine coding, simple CRUD design, or static single-agent tasks with complete information.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Use for insight, reframing, contradiction, impasse, and anomaly-driven problem solving when execution effort no longer helps. NOT for routine optimization, error correction, or well-specified tasks with known solution paths.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

Apply cognitive task analysis to expert work that depends on perceptual cues, branching judgment, and recurring monitoring loops. Use when decomposing expert capability into agent structure, simulation design, or validation interviews. NOT for ordinary step-by-step SOP capture or simple pipelines with no tacit cue layer.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

curiositech/port-daddy22026年10月12日 更新

curiositech のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する