Agent skill
academic-delivery
8-step pipeline for academic deliverables — essays, reports, analysis, capstones. Encodes the full intake-to-delivery workflow with automatic red-team triggering.
Install this agent skill to your Project
npx add-skill https://github.com/winstonkoh87/Athena-Public/tree/main/examples/skills/workflow/academic-delivery
SKILL.md
Academic Delivery Skill
Purpose: Structured pipeline for academic/knowledge deliverables. Prevents the V1-is-weak failure mode by auto-triggering adversarial review. Origin: Extracted from real-world execution of Assignments 11–15 (Mar 2026). Every assignment manually reconstructed this pipeline — now it's codified.
The 8-Step Pipeline
Step 1: INTAKE
- Parse brief/requirements document
- Extract: word count, format (essay/report/problem set), rubric criteria, deadline, client name
- Identify prescribed frameworks or sources (e.g., "use Hirshfield as critical lens")
- Log to
.context/client_work/pricing_log.mdif commercial
Step 2: SCOPE
- Classify deliverable type:
- Essay (argumentative, comparative, reflective)
- Report (technical, research, capstone)
- Problem Set (calculations, code, SPSS)
- Presentation (slides, pitch deck)
- Estimate complexity (Λ score)
- If commercial: trigger
client-pricingskill for quote generation
Step 3: RESEARCH
- Load domain context via Exocortex (
smart_search.py) - If external research needed: trigger
deep-research-loop(Cluster #12) - Extract key frameworks, models, citations
- Build a reference spine (3–7 sources minimum for essays)
Step 4: DRAFT (V1)
- Write full first draft to spec
- Embed citations inline
- Target 90–95% of word count (leave room for red-team additions)
- DO NOT deliver V1. V1 is always a working draft, never the output.
Step 5: RED-TEAM (Mandatory — Auto-Triggered)
[!IMPORTANT] This step is non-negotiable. It fires automatically after Step 4. The Assignment 13 V1 failure (zero counter-readings, zero formal analysis) is the canonical case study for why.
- Feed V1 through adversarial review (Cluster #8 —
red-team-review) - Evaluate against:
- Counter-reading: Does the draft contain at least one steelmanned opposing interpretation + rebuttal? (~80 words, non-negotiable)
- Formal analysis: For literary/theoretical work — does it engage with the form (enjambment, structure, methodology), not just content?
- Evidence density: Every claim backed by textual evidence or citation?
- Rubric alignment: Does the draft hit every criterion in the brief?
- Genre compliance: Is the output in the correct academic register? (MLA vs APA vs report format)
- Generate a fix list with accept/reject decisions for each criticism
- Reject invalid criticisms (category errors, phantom rubric scoring, n=1 methodology applied to literary analysis)
Step 6: REVISE (V2+)
- Incorporate accepted fixes from red-team
- If >3 structural issues found, produce V3 (rare — V2 is usually sufficient)
- Re-check word count against target
- Verify counter-reading and formal analysis are present
Step 7: COMPILE
- Format per submission requirements:
- Cover page (if required)
- Table of Contents (forces a structural audit — per Session 06 learning)
- Section headers (topic-based, not numbered, for MLA essays)
- Works Cited / References (MLA, APA, or Harvard as specified)
- Appendices (if applicable)
- Compaction triage: If over word count, cut from infrastructure (setup/transition/repetition) first, analytical core last. Ratio: 70% infrastructure cuts, 30% analysis cuts.
- Paragraphing pass — wall-of-text paragraphs are a delivery failure, not a content failure.
Step 8: DELIVER
- Final proofread (grammar, citation format, page numbers)
- Export to required format (Markdown → Google Doc → DOCX)
- If commercial: send to client with scope confirmation
- Log completion to activeContext / quicksave
Exit Gate
No deliverable leaves Step 8 without:
- Counter-reading present (if argumentative/analytical)
- Formal analysis present (if literary/theoretical)
- Word count within ±5% of target
- All rubric criteria addressed
- Format compliant (citations, headers, cover page)
Reflexion Archive
[REFLEXION] What failed: Assignment 13 V1 shipped with zero counter-readings and zero formal analysis. Why: Over-optimised for clean thesis confirmation. Lesson: Auto-trigger red-team after V1. 80 words for a counter-reading is non-negotiable.
[REFLEXION] What failed: Assignment 15 capstone at $500/6hrs = $83/hr (73% rate collapse). Why: No pricing skill fired during intake. Lesson: Step 2 (SCOPE) must trigger pricing evaluation for commercial work.
Recommended Agent Skills
Expand your agent's capabilities with these related and highly-rated skills.
context-compactor
9-section context compression with analysis scratchpad. Adapted from Claude Code's /compact system (2026-03-31).
trade-journal-analyzer
Unified post-trade analytics: journal pattern extraction + drawdown classification. Absorbs: drawdown-classifier.
circuit-breaker
Mandatory systemic pause when cumulative red flags exceed threshold. Forces disengagement across Trading, Spending, Relationships, Work, and Energy domains.
Red-Team Review
Bias-aware adversarial review for any artifact before shipping. 5-phase QA protocol with severity-weighted findings.
power-inversion
Unified negotiation engine: BATNA mapping, Dignity Premium pricing, and commitment device protection. Absorbs: commitment-device.
consiglieri-protocol
Mandatory pre-flight checklist for high-variance social contracts. Covers the Pryce Test, Exit Test, STFU Clause, Blast Radius Audit, Vibe Veto, and Adult-to-Adult comms rewrite.
Didn't find tool you were looking for?