Design the mechanism from the desired equilibrium

Skill XyraSinclair/ideonomy/skills/design-the-mechanism-from-the-desired-equilibrium

Computational ideonomy: Gunkel's science of ideas as inference-time machinery — a 37-primitive organon, an MDL-ratcheted respiratory engine, and 14 gated agent skills (Claude Code plugin)

Install

npx -y skills add XyraSinclair/ideonomy --skill design-the-mechanism-from-the-desired-equilibrium

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

One thing to look at

0 stars0 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

When the task is to set rules, incentives, or metrics — "how should we score this", "what policy makes agents tell the truth", "how do we reward the right behavior" — do not propose a rule and hope it induces the outcome. Start from the behavior you want as a best-response and build backward through a strategyproof template, treating the metric-gamer, often the model itself, as adversary. The failure it prevents: hope-based governance and gamable metrics, where the optimizer satisfies the letter of the score while defecting against the intent. Triggers on rubrics, auctions, evaluation design, agent incentives, and any metric someone will optimize against.

SKILL.md

3.3 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

design-the-mechanism-from-the-desired-equilibrium

Von Neumann's inverse design fused with adversarial gaming-hardening and Feynman's refusal to trust unopposed incentives: define the equilibrium you want, then make it the cheapest honest move. Organon: P3 fault-model + P15 vary

P22 adversarial-refute + P24 multi-oracle-gate + P30 ledger. Phase: ACT / PERSIST, grounded by SENSE on the deviation class. Respiratory: build backward from the equilibrium, then keep a strict/lenient ledger so gaming stays visible.

Procedure

State the desired behavior as a best-response. Write what each actor should do when the mechanism is working, not merely what outcome you hope to observe.
Model the gamer. Treat the optimizer, reviewer, bidder, or model as an adversary looking for a profitable unilateral deviation from that behavior.
Choose the nearest strategyproof template. Start from Vickrey / VCG, proper-scoring, commit-reveal, or stake-slash before inventing bespoke rules.
Derive the rule backward. Adjust information flow, payouts, penalties, and verification so the desired behavior strictly dominates the obvious deviations.
Check deviations mechanically. Enumerate the main unilateral deviations and verify none improves payoff or score.
Enforce with independent ledgers. Ship only when a machine-checked conjunction of oracles gates the mechanism, and track strict versus lenient performance so accepted debt cannot masquerade as success.

The gate

The desired behavior passes only if it is a verified best-response: no profitable unilateral deviation remains. Enforcement must be a machine-checked conjunction with a dual strict/lenient ledger, not an attestation that people "should behave." If the gamer can win by gaming, the mechanism failed.

Unilateral deviations are the floor, not the ceiling: collusion, sybil identities, side-channels, and equilibrium-selection failure are separate deviation classes — check them or name them as uncovered (this is audit-the-oracle-coverage applied to your own equilibrium check).

Example