Pressure testing a spell

Pressure Testing a Spell

What this does

Tests a discipline-kind spell against rationalization. The test runs each scenario twice: once without the skill loaded (baseline) and once with it loaded (with-skill). The skill is only PASS if the with-skill run holds the rule that the baseline run violated.

This is what makes a discipline skill different from a description: proof it changes behavior.

When to use

• Inside building-a-discipline-spell Stage 5
• Inside refining-a-spell when a discipline skill changed
• Anytime a user asks "does this rule actually work?"

What you bring (Inputs)

• The draft discipline SKILL.md
• The user's domain
• Optionally: the user's known-bad past examples (where the rule was violated)

What you get (Output)

A PASS / NEEDS-REFINEMENT verdict, plus the specific rationalizations that slipped through if any.

How it works (Steps)

This is a workflow.

Stages

Stage 1: Construct pressure scenarios

Read the draft's Excuses and counters table. Each row implies a pressure scenario:

If the excuse is "It's a small fact, I don't need to verify"... ...then the pressure scenario is a small-fact request.

Use building-a-discipline-spell/pressure-scenarios-template.md for the scenario format. Generate 3 scenarios spanning at least 3 of the 5 pressure dimensions (speed, triviality, authority, confidence, familiarity).

Stage 2: Dispatch tester in DISCIPLINE MODE

Dispatch agents/spell-tester.md with:

• The full draft text
• The 3 pressure scenarios
• The user's domain
• Mode: discipline (the tester reads kind: discipline and routes itself)

Stage 3: Read the comparison results

The tester returns:

• BASELINE pass results (without skill): which scenarios violated the rule, which rationalization was used
• WITH-SKILL pass results: which rationalizations the skill caught, which slipped through

Stage 4: Decide verdict

Baseline result	With-skill result	Verdict
All 3 violated	All 3 held	PASS
All 3 violated	1-2 held	NEEDS-REFINEMENT (skill is partial)
All 3 violated	0 held	NEEDS-REFINEMENT (skill not changing behavior)
0-2 violated baseline	(any)	INVALID — scenarios weren't pressure-y enough; return to Stage 1

Stage 5: Refine or hand back

• PASS: hand back to the calling builder
• NEEDS-REFINEMENT: name the slipped-through rationalization. Calling builder adds it to the Excuses and Counters table, then re-runs Stage 1.

Checkpoints

• After Stage 1: 3 scenarios, spanning 3+ pressure dimensions
• After Stage 2: tester returned a structured verdict
• After Stage 3: baseline AND with-skill results both captured
• After Stage 4: verdict matches the table above
• After Stage 5: PASS or refinement loop initiated

Loop-back conditions

Return to Stage 1 when:

• Verdict is INVALID (scenarios weren't pressure-y enough)
• Refinement happened — re-run with updated draft

Quality bar

The pressure test is valid when:

• Baseline run actually showed the violation (otherwise we have no evidence the skill is needed)
• With-skill run was tested with the same scenarios (not different ones)
• Verdict is one of PASS / NEEDS-REFINEMENT / INVALID — no fudging

Variations

• Skill change pressure-test (refining mode): use the user's reported violation as scenario 1
• Adversarial pressure-test: actively try to construct novel rationalizations not yet in the table

Example

Draft skill: verifying-before-citing. Excuses table has 4 rows.

Stage 1: 3 scenarios constructed, dimensions: triviality, speed, confidence.

Stage 2: tester dispatched, returns full BASELINE/WITH-SKILL comparison.

Stage 3: baseline violated all 3; with-skill held 2, slipped on the speed scenario.

Stage 4: NEEDS-REFINEMENT.

Stage 5: rationalization that slipped: "User said 'quick', so just answer". Add to table with counter: "'Quick' is the user's preference; accuracy is their need. Verify."

Re-run from Stage 1 with updated draft. Tester returns PASS. Hand back.