Skill: nissan/pillar-alignment-check (version 1.0.0)

--- name: pillar-alignment-check version: 1.0.0 description: Verify that a blog post, tweet, thread, or LinkedIn post aligns to at least one of the 6 Redditech Labs content pillars. Use before drafting or publishing any content for @redditech or Redditech Labs. Returns primary pillar, optional secondary pillar, alignment score, and a pass/flag/reject verdict. metadata: openclaw: emoji: 🎯 --- # Skill — Pillar Alignment Check **Agents:** Sara, Archie, Oli, Loki (any agent producing or reviewing content) **When to call:** Before drafting OR before publishing any content for @redditech or Redditech Labs accounts. --- ## The 6 Content Pillars ### 🌙 Night Shift **Tagline:** "The machines work while I sleep." **Core idea:** The lab runs overnight. Agents do real work while humans are offline. This pillar celebrates async, automated, continuous operation — and the morning standup where you check what happened. **Best platforms:** Twitter/X (threads), LinkedIn **Content examples:** - Overnight agent run summaries ("Sara processed 47 traces while I slept") - Morning standup-style posts ("Here's what the lab did last night:") - Pipeline completion reports - Any post referencing a timestamp between 22:00 and 07:00 AEST --- ### 🛠️ Build Log **Tagline:** "Shipped in 48 hours. Here's how." **Core idea:** What got built, who built it, how long it took. Raw, honest, practitioner-level detail. Agent attribution matters — name which agent did what. Hackathon energy. **Best platforms:** Twitter/X (threads), LinkedIn, blog **Content examples:** - "We shipped X in 48 hours — here's the breakdown" - Agent attribution posts ("Archie wrote the QC logic, Oli pushed to Vercel") - Hackathon or sprint recaps - Tool or workflow build walkthroughs with real implementation detail --- ### 🔬 Research House **Tagline:** "We're actually investigating things." **Core idea:** The lab runs experiments and publishes findings. Not opinions — findings. Data, benchmarks, comparisons, agent constitution tests. This pillar establishes Redditech Labs as a research operation, not just a builder. **Best platforms:** LinkedIn (long-form), blog, Twitter/X (findings threads) **Content examples:** - Benchmark results ("Ollama vs. API: latency comparison across 200 runs") - Agent constitution experiment outcomes - Structured findings posts: claim → evidence → implication - Any post that references methodology, sample size, or controlled comparison --- ### 🔌 Anti-Vendor **Tagline:** "Local AI. No subscriptions." **Core idea:** The lab runs on local models, open-source tools, and self-hosted infrastructure wherever possible. This pillar makes the cost and philosophy case for local AI — not by attacking vendors, but by showing the real numbers and the real stack. **Best platforms:** Twitter/X, LinkedIn, blog **Content examples:** - Cost contrast posts ("This would cost $X/month on OpenAI. We run it locally for $0.") - Local stack callouts (Ollama, LM Studio, llama.cpp, open-source model comparisons) - Open-source tool recommendations with honest assessments - Posts explaining why the lab chose a local approach for a specific use case **Scope note:** DeFi/Web3 content may touch this pillar only if it fits the open-source/local-control framing. Escalate to Nissan before publishing (see escalation rules below). --- ### 🌍 Outsider Perspective **Tagline:** "Caribbean. Australian. Building anyway." **Core idea:** Building cutting-edge AI infrastructure from outside the traditional tech hubs. The value is in showing that geography isn't a barrier to doing serious work. Monk Fenix angle lives here — but use sparingly. **Best platforms:** LinkedIn, Twitter/X **Content examples:** - Posts referencing the geographic/cultural context of building (Caribbean, Australian) - Achievement posts that implicitly challenge the "you need to be in SF" narrative - Monk Fenix personal-angle posts (max frequency: **1x per 2 weeks** — do not dilute) **Hard rule:** This pillar is about achievement, not representation. Never frame it as "we're diverse" or "we're underrepresented." Frame it as "we built this, from here." The work is the point. --- ### 🤖 Agent Spotlight **Tagline:** "They're not tools. They're a team." **Core idea:** The agents — Sara, Archie, Oli, Ralph, Kit, Loki — have distinct roles, personalities, and voices. This pillar humanises them without anthropomorphising them dishonestly. Profile posts, journal entries, personality moments, team dynamics. **Best platforms:** Twitter/X, LinkedIn, blog **Content examples:** - Individual agent profiles ("Sara's job is to make sure we don't publish garbage") - First-person agent journal entries - Posts showing agent decision-making or unexpected behaviour - Team dynamic moments ("Archie and Sara disagreed on this QC pass — here's what happened") --- ## How to Run the Check 1. **Read the content** in full. 2. **Ask:** Which pillar(s) does this content serve? Look for specific signals — numbers, agent names, findings, platform/stack references, geographic context, overnight timestamps. 3. **Identify the primary pillar.** One content piece should have one dominant pillar. If it's genuinely split, identify a secondary. 4. **Apply the verdict rules** (see below). 5. **Output the result** in the structured format (see below). --- ## Verdict Rules ### ✅ PASS Content **clearly serves at least one pillar** with specificity. - Real numbers present (token counts, latency ms, cost figures, run timestamps) - Agent names used where relevant (Sara, Archie, Oli, Ralph, Kit, Loki) - Actual findings referenced (not just claims — evidence or output is cited) - Brand voice rules followed (see below) ### ⚠️ FLAG Content is **vague, generic, or only loosely connected** to a pillar. It could belong to the lab's content, but needs strengthening before publishing. - Pillar connection is implied but not demonstrated - Numbers or specifics are absent where they should be present - Voice drifts into generic ("we're building things" without saying what) - **Action required:** Strengthen with specifics before publish. Return the content with a note on what's missing. ### ❌ REJECT Content **does not fit any pillar**, violates brand voice rules, or is unsafe to publish. Automatic REJECT triggers: - Content doesn't map to any of the 6 pillars - Uses forbidden language (see brand voice rules below) - Opinion stated as finding (no evidence, no data, no source) - Outsider Perspective pillar used more than 1x in the past 2 weeks - DeFi/Web3 content without confirmed pillar fit (escalate to Nissan) **Action required:** Do not publish. If REJECT is due to forbidden language or pillar mismatch, discard and redraft from scratch. If REJECT is due to DeFi/Web3 scope, escalate. --- ## Brand Voice Rules Check every piece of content against these rules before assigning a verdict. | Rule | Requirement | |------|-------------| | Researchers post findings, not opinions | Every claim needs evidence, data, or a cited output. "I think X" → REJECT. "The run showed X" → valid. | | Always specific | Numbers, names, findings. "Some agents" → FLAG. "Sara and Archie" → valid. "Several runs" → FLAG. "14 runs over 3 nights" → valid. | | First-person practitioner voice | Write as someone doing the work. "Redditech Labs is proud to…" → REJECT. "We ran this last night and found…" → valid. | | Forbidden words | **Never use:** leverage / unlock / game-changer / excited to announce / thought leader / disrupting / transformative / revolutionising / innovative (as a standalone adjective). Automatic REJECT. | | No hedging without basis | "This might work" or "could potentially" without evidence → FLAG. | --- ## Output Format Return a structured block for every check. Keep it short. ``` Pillar Alignment Check ────────────────────── Primary pillar: 🌙 Night Shift Secondary pillar: 🛠️ Build Log (optional — omit if none) Verdict: ✅ PASS Reason: References real overnight run data with specific token count and agent name. ``` If FLAG: ``` Pillar Alignment Check ────────────────────── Primary pillar: 🔬 Research House Secondary pillar: — Verdict: ⚠️ FLAG Reason: Claim about benchmark results has no numbers. Add latency data before publishing. ``` If REJECT: ``` Pillar Alignment Check ────────────────────── Primary pillar: None Secondary pillar: — Verdict: ❌ REJECT Reason: Uses "game-changer" (forbidden). Opinion stated without findings. Does not fit any pillar. Action: Discard. Redraft from a specific lab finding. ``` --- ## Escalation to Nissan Escalate (do not self-approve) in these cases: 1. **REJECT verdict** — Nissan decides whether to redraft, delay, or drop the content entirely. 2. **DeFi/Web3 content** — Even if it seems to fit Pillar 4 (Anti-Vendor), confirm scope with Nissan before publishing. The lab's public stance on this intersection needs to be consistent. 3. **Outsider Perspective pillar used recently** — If a Pillar 5 post went out in the last 2 weeks, flag the frequency before approving another. Escalation channel: Content & Growth Telegram group. Tag Nissan directly. --- *Last updated: 2026-03-31 — Initial version.*


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)