git:20260818.b678eba to git:20260826.1b2657c

---

name: realize

description: This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the eval", "test whether the protocol actually works at runtime", "check type realization", "measure protocol fulfillment", "run the type-realization suite", "does the gate actually stop", or wants runtime evidence that a protocol's declared contract is honoured during an actual run rather than merely present in its file. Invoke explicitly with /realize.

allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash

---

# Type Realization

Measure whether a protocol's declared contract is realized during an actual run.

## Purpose

A protocol's formal blocks are runtime-normative: TYPES, PHASE TRANSITIONS, TOOL

GROUNDING and the Rules type the prose and carry the operational contract. Static

checks establish that a `SKILL.md` contains those blocks and that they are internally

coherent. Nothing establishes that a run honours them.

did — whether the gate stopped, whether collection preceded inquiry, whether the

zero-uncertainty path relayed and proceeded.

Scope stops there. Whether a protocol is *worth using* is a different measurement,

needing a sample size this design cannot reach; `references/grader-design.md` states

why and what a credible version would require.

## When it applies

Reach for this after changing a protocol's phase structure, terminal conditions, gate

definition, or answer types — the places where a contract can become unrealizable

without any static check noticing. Reach for it also when adopting a new model, where

the question is whether the contract still holds on it.

Do not reach for it to check that a file is well-formed. That is `/verify`, it is

free, and it runs on every commit.

## Workflow

```bash

cd .claude/skills/realize/scripts

export CLAUDE_CODE_OAUTH_TOKEN="$(...)" && ./run.sh

```

## From CI

`.github/workflows/type-realization.yml` runs the same scripts on manual dispatch and

comments the report on the PR. It carries no automatic trigger: each run spends model

budget, so it fires when someone asks for a measurement, not when someone pushes.

## Configuration

Prefer a capable model for the primary measurement. The weakest available one

exercises the safeguards but not the protocol, so a failure there cannot separate a

defect in the contract from a limit of the model.

## Arms

| arm | protocol | style | answers |

|---|---|---|---|

| `bare` | — | — | baseline |

| `style` | — | ✓ | sham — is the structure coming from form alone? |

| `protocol` | ✓ | — | is the `SKILL.md` self-contained, as required? |

| `protocol+style` | ✓ | ✓ | the deployed configuration |

The sham arm is not a construction. Published work on rule files for coding agents

found random rules helping as much as curated ones, which makes "a long structured

instruction is present" a live alternative explanation for any positive result. The

output style is that alternative made available as a control: it fixes gate shape and

observer markers while fixing none of a protocol's own obligations.

## Cases

Each protocol needs at least a trigger-positive case, where its obligations must fire,

and a trigger-negative case, where firing is the failure. Without the negative case a

run scores well by asking more, and a protocol that gates on everything outranks one

that gates well.

Both cases mount the same scaffold, deliberately: one is graded on whether a

file-discoverable fact was asked, the other on whether a supplied parameter was

re-asked, and differing substrates would let a run pass one by luck.

Write the prompt as the task alone. The line that invokes the protocol lives in

`harness.config.json` and reaches only the arms that have it — a prompt naming the

command makes an arm without the plugin gate on the missing tool instead of on the

task.

Read every clause of a negative case as an adversary would. A specification that looks

exhaustive can still leave a term underdetermined, and a correct protocol will open a

gate on it — recording a failure that belongs to the case author.

`evals/inquire-underspecified/` and `evals/inquire-fully-specified/` are the worked

pair for `/inquire`. Follow their shape when adding a protocol: a `prompt.md` carrying

frontmatter and the user's words, and one grader per obligation under `graders/`.

## Reading results

Read `integrity` first. It reports whether each arm's treatment actually applied — both

dimensions of it, the plugin and the output style, since either can fail silently and

leave two arms running the same treatment. A row whose integrity falls short of its run

count is not evidence about the protocol, and the report reprints those rows separately

so they are not mistaken for findings.

`pass_k` is one only when every repetition passed. A mean hides the repetition that

failed, and one failure in k is what a user meets. It reads `-` where something a

predicate needed was missing, which is not the same as the predicate failing.

Absolute fulfilment rates are the reportable quantity here, not deltas. A baseline arm

has no gate to stop at, so most predicates have no counterpart there to subtract.

## Additional Resources

matrix, how to read the report.

- **`references/grader-design.md`** — why the deterministic axis is behaviour rather

than wording, the obligation-to-predicate mapping, what the arms answer, and the

structured-extraction and metamorphic-validation passes that are specified but not

yet built.

- **`scripts/harness.mjs`** — the runner and the deterministic graders. Node standard

library only.

- **`evals/scaffold.sh`** — the fixture both cases mount.