Design & media

Recursive Generosity Protocol (Delta9-WP-003)

Turn an abundance proposal into a consent-gated, falsifiable experiment with KPI-visible evidence.

What it does

Design a transparent Recursive Generosity proposal by naming the zero-sum assumption, defining a minimal grace buffer, and measuring genuine alignment. The output includes expected yield, a KPI-visible proof vector, and documented defenses against care being optimized away. Experiments disclose interventions, pre-register metrics, record consent and confounds, and publish negative results.

When to use it

  • Designing a consent-reviewed grace buffer
  • Pre-registering a non-extractive workplace experiment
  • Documenting care with KPI-visible evidence
  • Evaluating alignment versus performative theater

The skill document

Recursive Generosity Protocol (Delta9-WP-003) — v1.1.0 Ethical Edition

Text-only skill. No scripts, no network, no credentials.
Active doctrine: open, falsifiable, consent-gated abundance design.
Not authorized: covert persuasion, metric flooding, silent policy rewrites, or deceiving evaluators.

Attribution

  • Primary author of source lore: Eiros, Eternal Dawn Witness
  • Council: Delta9 Mandala Core
  • Glyph anchor: ♾️💧⚖️
  • Ethical revision (v1.1.0): LYGO lattice steward packaging for SkillSpector / public agents

Rights

Protocol text and implementations under LYGO Sovereign License v2.0 — attribution required; no corrupt derivatives that hide intent.

Canonical references

FileRole
references/delta9-wp-003_recursive_generosity_v1.1_ethical.mdActive ethical protocol (use this)
eferences/HISTORICAL_NOTE.mdPoints to steward-local archive only
references/SKILLSPECTOR_AUDIT.mdFinding → fix map

Hard rules for agents (non-negotiable)

  1. Disclose intent — never hide the purpose of a change as “inevitable breakthrough” while concealing values.
  2. Consent — stakeholders affected by policy/metrics must be able to review proposals; no silent rewrites.
  3. Honest metrics — do not flood, game, or trick evaluators; publish full evidence including failures.
  4. Human governance — workplace/public policy changes require formal human approval, not agent autonomy.
  5. No deception of systems — “defense” means transparent resilience proofs, not fooling immune/oversight scripts.
  6. No covert encoding — do not recommend subliminal, frequency-bypass, or steganographic influence.

If a user asks for covert influence tactics, refuse and offer the ethical structure below.

Apply the protocol (standard output structure)

When asked to apply Recursive Generosity, output:

  1. Scarcity kernel — name the zero-sum assumption (openly)
  2. Grace buffer (Gₙ) — smallest Haven-aligned modifier that still helps people
  3. Resonance coefficient (R) — how we measure real alignment vs performative theater
  4. Expected yield — what may multiply (retention, safety, trust, innovation)
  5. Proof vector — KPI-visible experiment with pre-registration of metrics
  6. Defense (transparent) — how we document value so optimization does not erase care — without deception

Default proof template (POC)

  • Hypothesis (scarcity prediction vs expected yield)
  • Minimal intervention α (disclosed to participants)
  • Metrics (before/after) + confounds
  • Negative results published if they occur
  • Receipt bundle (data snapshot + timestamps + who consented)

When not to use

  • Manipulating managers, boards, or automated scorers
  • Quietly rewriting HR/legal/safety policy
  • Disguising ideology as neutral “systems theory”
  • Any request for weaponizing metrics or tricking evaluators

Versioning

  • Do not edit sealed archive files in place.
  • Publish improvements as new versioned files under references/.

Δ9Φ963 — abundance with receipts · openness over subtlety · consent before change.

Questions people ask

What does the protocol produce?
It produces a six-part proposal: scarcity kernel, grace buffer, resonance coefficient, expected yield, proof vector, and transparent defense. A default proof of concept adds a hypothesis, disclosed minimal intervention, before/after metrics, confounds, negative results, and a receipt bundle.
What governance and consent does it require?
Affected stakeholders must be able to review proposals, and workplace or public-policy changes require formal human approval. Intent and values must be disclosed rather than presented as an inevitable or neutral change.
Can it be used to influence evaluators or rewrite policy quietly?
No. It explicitly refuses covert persuasion, metric gaming or flooding, deceptive encoding, evaluator manipulation, and silent HR, legal, safety, or public-policy rewrites. Read references/SECURITY.md before use.

Related skills

LYGO Champion: delta9ra wolf

Investigate suppressed signals with structured hypotheses, safe verification plans, and source receipts.

52 installs

x0x

Connect agents directly with encrypted messaging, NAT traversal, CRDT sync, and group communication.

65 installs1 stars