Latent Space Engineering

# Competitive Review Framing

## Principle

When multiple agents review the same artifact, framing the dispatch
with competitive incentives increases thoroughness and evidence
quality.

## For 3+ Agents (Competitive)

Add this to each agent's dispatch prompt:

~~~
You are one of N independent reviewers analyzing this code. Each
reviewer's findings will be compared. The most thorough and
well-evidenced findings will be prioritized for action. Focus on
depth over breadth.
~~~

## For 2 Agents (Collaborative)

Use collaborative framing instead:

~~~
You and one other reviewer will cover different angles. Your findings
will be integrated into a single report. Focus on your assigned scope.
~~~

Competitive framing adds overhead for fewer than 3 agents and can
cause redundant coverage.

## Avoiding Perverse Incentives

Thoroughness means evidence-backed and prioritized by severity, not
volume. To prevent inflated issue counts:

- Require evidence citations for each finding
- Weight findings by severity, not count
- Discard findings that lack specific code references

## Where To Apply

- `pensive` review agents (code-reviewer, etc.)
- `pr-review-toolkit` multi-agent reviews
- `attune:war-room` expert panels
- Any parallel dispatch of 3+ review subagents

## Anti-Pattern

Do NOT use competitive framing for:

- Implementation agents (cooperation > competition)
- Planning agents (synthesis > competition)
- Single-agent dispatch (no comparison possible)


---
name: emotional-framing
description: Guidelines for instruction tone in skills and agent prompts.
  Replace threat language with confident framing for better agent
  performance.
parent_skill: imbue:latent-space-engineering
category: methodology
estimated_tokens: 250
---

# Emotional Framing

## Principle

Calm, confident instructions produce better results than threats or
fear-based prompting. Agents under stress (threat-heavy prompts) rush,
cut corners, and produce lower-quality output.

## Anti-Patterns (Replace These)

| Threat Pattern | Problem |
|----------------|---------|
| "You MUST do X or the system will fail" | Creates urgency that bypasses careful reasoning |
| "CRITICAL: failure to comply will..." | Frames task as punishment avoidance |
| "WARNING: do NOT deviate from..." | Implies deviation is the default |
| "NEVER do X under ANY circumstances" | Absolute prohibitions invite edge-case failures |
| "This is your LAST CHANCE to..." | Artificial scarcity degrades quality |

## Preferred Patterns (Use These)

| Confident Pattern | Why It Works |
|-------------------|-------------|
| "You've got this. Take your time with X." | Encourages careful reasoning |
| "Focus on getting X right. The details matter here." | Directs attention without threat |
| "This is important work. Here's what good looks like..." | Sets positive exemplar |
| "Take a careful look at X before proceeding." | Promotes deliberation |
| "Your goal is to produce Y. Here's the approach..." | Outcome-focused, not fear-focused |

## Checklist for Skill Authors

1. Read your prompt aloud. Does it sound threatening?
2. Count urgency markers (MUST, NEVER, CRITICAL, WARNING). Are they
   justified by genuine safety constraints?
3. Replace threat language with confidence language.
4. Keep urgency markers for genuine safety constraints only
   (e.g., "NEVER commit secrets to git" is valid).

## When Urgency IS Appropriate

Some constraints are genuinely critical:

- Security boundaries (secret handling, auth)
- Data loss prevention (destructive operations)
- Constitutional rules (human approval requirements)

For these, urgency markers are appropriate. The test: would violating
this instruction cause real harm? If yes, keep the strong language.