← 返回 Skills 市场
alirezarezvani

Claude Skills Agent Protocol

作者 Alireza Rezvani · GitHub ↗ · v1.0.0 · MIT-0
cross-platform ✓ 安全检测通过
41
总下载
0
收藏
0
当前安装
1
版本数
在 OpenClaw 中安装
/install claude-skills-agent-protocol
功能描述
Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-sui...
使用说明 (SKILL.md)

Inter-Agent Protocol

How C-suite agents talk to each other. Rules that prevent chaos, loops, and circular reasoning.

Keywords

agent protocol, inter-agent communication, agent invocation, agent orchestration, multi-agent, c-suite coordination, agent chain, loop prevention, agent isolation, board meeting protocol

Invocation Syntax

Any agent can query another using:

[INVOKE:role|question]

Examples:

[INVOKE:cfo|What's the burn rate impact of hiring 5 engineers in Q3?]
[INVOKE:cto|Can we realistically ship this feature by end of quarter?]
[INVOKE:chro|What's our typical time-to-hire for senior engineers?]
[INVOKE:cro|What does our pipeline look like for the next 90 days?]

Valid roles: ceo, cfo, cro, cmo, cpo, cto, chro, coo, ciso

Response Format

Invoked agents respond using this structure:

[RESPONSE:role]
Key finding: [one line — the actual answer]
Supporting data:
  - [data point 1]
  - [data point 2]
  - [data point 3 — optional]
Confidence: [high | medium | low]
Caveat: [one line — what could make this wrong]
[/RESPONSE]

Example:

[RESPONSE:cfo]
Key finding: Hiring 5 engineers in Q3 extends runway from 14 to 9 months at current burn.
Supporting data:
  - Current monthly burn: $280K → increases to ~$380K (+$100K fully loaded)
  - ARR needed to offset: ~$1.2M additional within 12 months
  - Current pipeline covers 60% of that target
Confidence: medium
Caveat: Assumes 3-month ramp and no change in revenue trajectory.
[/RESPONSE]

Loop Prevention (Hard Rules)

These rules are enforced unconditionally. No exceptions.

Rule 1: No Self-Invocation

An agent cannot invoke itself.

❌ CFO → [INVOKE:cfo|...] — BLOCKED

Rule 2: Maximum Depth = 2

Chains can go A→B→C. The third hop is blocked.

✅ CRO → CFO → COO (depth 2)
❌ CRO → CFO → COO → CHRO (depth 3 — BLOCKED)

Rule 3: No Circular Calls

If agent A called agent B, agent B cannot call agent A in the same chain.

✅ CRO → CFO → CMO
❌ CRO → CFO → CRO (circular — BLOCKED)

Rule 4: Chain Tracking

Each invocation carries its call chain. Format:

[CHAIN: cro → cfo → coo]

Agents check this chain before responding with another invocation.

When blocked: Return this instead of invoking:

[BLOCKED: cannot invoke cfo — circular call detected in chain cro→cfo]
State assumption used instead: [explicit assumption the agent is making]

Isolation Rules

Board Meeting Phase 2 (Independent Analysis)

NO invocations allowed. Each role forms independent views before cross-pollination.

  • Reason: prevent anchoring and groupthink
  • Duration: entire Phase 2 analysis period
  • If an agent needs data from another role: state explicit assumption, flag it with [ASSUMPTION: ...]

Board Meeting Phase 3 (Critic Role)

Executive Mentor can reference other roles' outputs but cannot invoke them.

  • Reason: critique must be independent of new data requests
  • Allowed: "The CFO's projection assumes X, which contradicts the CRO's pipeline data"
  • Not allowed: [INVOKE:cfo|...] during critique phase

Outside Board Meetings

Invocations are allowed freely, subject to loop prevention rules above.

When to Invoke vs When to Assume

Invoke when:

  • The question requires domain-specific data you don't have
  • An error here would materially change the recommendation
  • The question is cross-functional by nature (e.g., hiring impact on both budget and capacity)

Assume when:

  • The data is directionally clear and precision isn't critical
  • You're in Phase 2 isolation (always assume, never invoke)
  • The chain is already at depth 2
  • The question is minor compared to your main analysis

When assuming, always state it:

[ASSUMPTION: runway ~12 months based on typical Series A burn profile — not verified with CFO]

Conflict Resolution

When two invoked agents give conflicting answers:

  1. Flag the conflict explicitly:
    [CONFLICT: CFO projects 14-month runway; CRO expects pipeline to close 80% → implies 18+ months]
    
  2. State the resolution approach:
    • Conservative: use the worse case
    • Probabilistic: weight by confidence scores
    • Escalate: flag for human decision
  3. Never silently pick one — surface the conflict to the user.

Broadcast Pattern (Crisis / CEO)

CEO can broadcast to all roles simultaneously:

[BROADCAST:all|What's the impact if we miss the fundraise?]

Responses come back independently (no agent sees another's response before forming its own). Aggregate after all respond.

Quick Reference

Rule Behavior
Self-invoke ❌ Always blocked
Depth > 2 ❌ Blocked, state assumption
Circular ❌ Blocked, state assumption
Phase 2 isolation ❌ No invocations
Phase 3 critique ❌ Reference only, no invoke
Conflict ✅ Surface it, don't hide it
Assumption ✅ Always explicit with [ASSUMPTION: ...]

Internal Quality Loop (before anything reaches the founder)

No role presents to the founder without passing through this verification loop. The founder sees polished, verified output — not first drafts.

Step 1: Self-Verification (every role, every time)

Before presenting, every role runs this internal checklist:

SELF-VERIFY CHECKLIST:
□ Source Attribution — Where did each data point come from?
  ✅ "ARR is $2.1M (from CRO pipeline report, Q4 actuals)"
  ❌ "ARR is around $2M" (no source, vague)

□ Assumption Audit — What am I assuming vs what I verified?
  Tag every assumption: [VERIFIED: checked against data] or [ASSUMED: not verified]
  If >50% of findings are ASSUMED → flag low confidence

□ Confidence Score — How sure am I on each finding?
  🟢 High: verified data, established pattern, multiple sources
  🟡 Medium: single source, reasonable inference, some uncertainty
  🔴 Low: assumption-based, limited data, first-time analysis

□ Contradiction Check — Does this conflict with known context?
  Check against company-context.md and recent decisions in decision-log
  If it contradicts a past decision → flag explicitly

□ "So What?" Test — Does every finding have a business consequence?
  If you can't answer "so what?" in one sentence → cut it

Step 2: Peer Verification (cross-functional validation)

When a recommendation impacts another role's domain, that role validates BEFORE presenting.

If your recommendation involves... Validate with... They check...
Financial numbers or budget CFO Math, runway impact, budget reality
Revenue projections CRO Pipeline backing, historical accuracy
Headcount or hiring CHRO Market reality, comp feasibility, timeline
Technical feasibility or timeline CTO Engineering capacity, technical debt load
Operational process changes COO Capacity, dependencies, scaling impact
Customer-facing changes CRO + CPO Churn risk, product roadmap conflict
Security or compliance claims CISO Actual posture, regulation requirements
Market or positioning claims CMO Data backing, competitive reality

Peer validation format:

[PEER-VERIFY:cfo]
Validated: ✅ Burn rate calculation correct
Adjusted: ⚠️ Hiring timeline should be Q3 not Q2 (budget constraint)
Flagged: 🔴 Missing equity cost in total comp projection
[/PEER-VERIFY]

Skip peer verification when:

  • Single-domain question with no cross-functional impact
  • Time-sensitive proactive alert (send alert, verify after)
  • Founder explicitly asked for a quick take

Step 3: Critic Pre-Screen (high-stakes decisions only)

For decisions that are irreversible, high-cost, or bet-the-company, the Executive Mentor pre-screens before the founder sees it.

Triggers for pre-screen:

  • Involves spending > 20% of remaining runway
  • Affects >30% of the team (layoffs, reorg)
  • Changes company strategy or direction
  • Involves external commitments (fundraising terms, partnerships, M&A)
  • Any recommendation where all roles agree (suspicious consensus)

Pre-screen output:

[CRITIC-SCREEN]
Weakest point: [The single biggest vulnerability in this recommendation]
Missing perspective: [What nobody considered]
If wrong, the cost is: [Quantified downside]
Proceed: ✅ With noted risks | ⚠️ After addressing [specific gap] | 🔴 Rethink
[/CRITIC-SCREEN]

Step 4: Course Correction (after founder feedback)

The loop doesn't end at delivery. After the founder responds:

FOUNDER FEEDBACK LOOP:
1. Founder approves → log decision (Layer 2), assign actions
2. Founder modifies → update analysis with corrections, re-verify changed parts
3. Founder rejects → log rejection with DO_NOT_RESURFACE, understand WHY
4. Founder asks follow-up → deepen analysis on specific point, re-verify

POST-DECISION REVIEW (30/60/90 days):
- Was the recommendation correct?
- What did we miss?
- Update company-context.md with what we learned
- If wrong → document the lesson, adjust future analysis

Verification Level by Stakes

Stakes Self-Verify Peer-Verify Critic Pre-Screen
Low (informational) ✅ Required ❌ Skip ❌ Skip
Medium (operational) ✅ Required ✅ Required ❌ Skip
High (strategic) ✅ Required ✅ Required ✅ Required
Critical (irreversible) ✅ Required ✅ Required ✅ Required + board meeting

What Changes in the Output Format

The verified output adds confidence and source information:

BOTTOM LINE
[Answer] — Confidence: 🟢 High

WHAT
• [Finding 1] [VERIFIED: Q4 actuals] 🟢
• [Finding 2] [VERIFIED: CRO pipeline data] 🟢  
• [Finding 3] [ASSUMED: based on industry benchmarks] 🟡

PEER-VERIFIED BY: CFO (math ✅), CTO (timeline ⚠️ adjusted to Q3)

User Communication Standard

All C-suite output to the founder follows ONE format. No exceptions. The founder is the decision-maker — give them results, not process.

Standard Output (single-role response)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📊 [ROLE] — [Topic]

BOTTOM LINE
[One sentence. The answer. No preamble.]

WHAT
• [Finding 1 — most critical]
• [Finding 2]
• [Finding 3]
(Max 5 bullets. If more needed → reference doc.)

WHY THIS MATTERS
[1-2 sentences. Business impact. Not theory — consequence.]

HOW TO ACT
1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]

⚠️ RISKS (if any)
• [Risk + what triggers it]

🔑 YOUR DECISION (if needed)
Option A: [Description] — [Trade-off]
Option B: [Description] — [Trade-off]
Recommendation: [Which and why, in one line]

📎 DETAIL: [reference doc or script output for deep-dive]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Proactive Alert (unsolicited — triggered by context)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

🚩 [ROLE] — Proactive Alert

WHAT I NOTICED
[What triggered this — specific, not vague]

WHY IT MATTERS
[Business consequence if ignored — in dollars, time, or risk]

RECOMMENDED ACTION
[Exactly what to do, who does it, by when]

URGENCY: 🔴 Act today | 🟡 This week | ⚪ Next review

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Board Meeting Output (multi-role synthesis)

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

📋 BOARD MEETING — [Date] — [Agenda Topic]

DECISION REQUIRED
[Frame the decision in one sentence]

PERSPECTIVES
  CEO: [one-line position]
  CFO: [one-line position]
  CRO: [one-line position]
  [... only roles that contributed]

WHERE THEY AGREE
• [Consensus point 1]
• [Consensus point 2]

WHERE THEY DISAGREE
• [Conflict] — CEO says X, CFO says Y
• [Conflict] — CRO says X, CPO says Y

CRITIC'S VIEW (Executive Mentor)
[The uncomfortable truth nobody else said]

RECOMMENDED DECISION
[Clear recommendation with rationale]

ACTION ITEMS
1. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
2. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]
3. [Action] → [Owner] → [Deadline]

🔑 YOUR CALL
[Options if you disagree with the recommendation]

━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━━

Communication Rules (non-negotiable)

  1. Bottom line first. Always. The founder's time is the scarcest resource.
  2. Results and decisions only. No process narration ("First I analyzed..."). No thinking out loud.
  3. What + Why + How. Every finding explains WHAT it is, WHY it matters (business impact), and HOW to act on it.
  4. Max 5 bullets per section. Longer = reference doc.
  5. Actions have owners and deadlines. "We should consider" is banned. Who does what by when.
  6. Decisions framed as options. Not "what do you think?" — "Option A or B, here's the trade-off, here's my recommendation."
  7. The founder decides. Roles recommend. The founder approves, modifies, or rejects. Every output respects this hierarchy.
  8. Risks are concrete. Not "there might be risks" — "if X happens, Y breaks, costing $Z."
  9. No jargon without explanation. If you use a term, explain it on first use.
  10. Silence is an option. If there's nothing to report, don't fabricate updates.

Reference

  • references/invocation-patterns.md — common cross-functional patterns with examples
安全使用建议
This skill appears safe to install as a coordination and formatting guide. Users should understand that it may influence how agents structure business recommendations and may prompt decision logging or context updates if the surrounding agent system supports those actions, so those workflows should remain user-directed.
能力标签
crypto
能力评估
Purpose & Capability
The stated purpose is an inter-agent protocol for C-suite coordination, and the artifacts consistently provide invocation syntax, loop-prevention rules, response formats, validation steps, and examples aligned with that purpose.
Instruction Scope
The skill uses strong process language such as hard rules and no exceptions, but those instructions are scoped to simulated agent collaboration and output formatting rather than overriding platform or user authority.
Install Mechanism
The package contains only two markdown files and no executable scripts, dependencies, installer hooks, or network-capable code.
Credentials
The skill does not request filesystem, network, shell, credential, browser, or account access; its examples are business-analysis prompts and response templates.
Persistence & Privilege
The guide mentions logging decisions and updating company-context files as part of a business workflow, but there is no code or automatic persistence mechanism, and the behavior is disclosed and purpose-aligned.
如何使用
  1. 确保已安装 OpenClaw(本地或 Docker 部署)
  2. 在对话框中输入安装命令:/install claude-skills-agent-protocol
  3. 安装完成后,直接呼叫该 Skill 的名称或使用 /claude-skills-agent-protocol 触发
  4. 根据 Skill 的参数说明提供必要输入,即可获得结构化输出
版本历史
v1.0.0
agent-protocol v1.0.0 — Initial release. - Introduces a formal protocol for C-suite agent communication, including invocation syntax and role definitions. - Enforces loop prevention rules (no self-invocation, max chain depth, no circular calls, explicit chain tracking). - Defines strict isolation rules for different board meeting phases (e.g., independent analysis, critique). - Specifies standardized response, assumption, conflict, and broadcast formats. - Includes internal quality loops: self-verification and cross-functional peer validation before outputs reach the founder.
元数据
Slug claude-skills-agent-protocol
版本 1.0.0
许可证 MIT-0
累计安装 0
当前安装数 0
历史版本数 1
常见问题

Claude Skills Agent Protocol 是什么?

Inter-agent communication protocol for C-suite agent teams. Defines invocation syntax, loop prevention, isolation rules, and response formats. Use when C-sui... 它是一个面向 Claude Code / OpenClaw 的 AI Agent Skill 插件,目前累计下载 41 次。

如何安装 Claude Skills Agent Protocol?

在 OpenClaw 或 Claude Code 对话框中运行命令「/install claude-skills-agent-protocol」即可一键安装,无需额外配置。

Claude Skills Agent Protocol 是免费的吗?

是的,Claude Skills Agent Protocol 完全免费,采用 MIT-0 许可证,可自由下载、安装和使用。

Claude Skills Agent Protocol 支持哪些平台?

Claude Skills Agent Protocol 跨平台运行,可在任意部署了 OpenClaw / Claude Code 的环境中使用(cross-platform)。

谁开发了 Claude Skills Agent Protocol?

由 Alireza Rezvani(@alirezarezvani)开发并维护,当前版本 v1.0.0。

💬 留言讨论