Web・iOS・Androidの画面を、読み上げやキーボード操作に対応させ、ラベル、配色、操作対象の大きさなどをWCAG 2.2に沿って設計・点検するスキル。
- アイコンボタンの説明を付けたいとき
- キーボード操作とモーダルの点検
- コントラストや操作対象の大きさの確認
顧客や取引先への返信案を人の承認に結び付け、承認された本文と送信先、送信結果を記録します。修正前の古い承認による送信や、複数の担当処理による重複送信を防ぐ設計です。
Operator approval contract with internal filing notices for agent-drafted outbound messages, hashed drafts, epoch-keyed decisions, durable delivery claims and receipts, and a pre-draft baseline gate. Use when an agent drafts messages to external counterparties and a human operator must approve, reject, or steer each send before it leaves.
エージェントが作った対外メッセージの下書きを、人の承認を経て送信するための手順と記録方式を定めます。本文のハッシュ値、つまり内容を識別する値と更新時点を承認に結び付け、修正前の承認が新しい本文に使われるのを防ぎます。送信の担当処理を一つに限定する仕組みと、承認者、送信先、送信結果を残す台帳の参考実装も含みます。
顧客、仕入先、投資家、パートナーへの返信をエージェントに下書きさせ、人が確認してから送りたい場面に向いています。下書きの登録前に契約や顧客管理の記録を確認し、既に分かっている事実を相手に聞き直すのを抑える仕組みもあります。承認状況の通知は確認済みの内部宛先に限定します。
参考実装はSQLiteを使い、送信サービス自体は呼び出しません。承認者の認証やデータベースの初期化は別途必要です。送信結果が不明な処理は自動再試行せず、確認して記録を照合します。保証するのは承認ごとに一度の自動送信試行で、外部への配信が必ず一度だけ完了する保証ではありません。
この紹介文は、公開されている SKILL.md をもとに AI(Claude Haiku)が作成しました。正確な仕様は下の原文を確認してください。
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
An agent that talks to external counterparties should never send on its own judgment and should keep the operator informed internally. This skill defines the contract: every outbound draft is filed as an obligation, an operator decides on the exact text, and a delivery ledger proves what went out.
| Object | Meaning |
|---|---|
| Obligation | One thing we owe a counterparty. Status moves drafted, then approved or rejected, then sent. Carries direction, counterparty, channel, and an updated_at epoch. |
| Draft | Sidecar row holding the exact draft text, a sha256 of that text, origin coordinates (platform, channel, thread, user), and priority (P0 to P3). One per obligation, replaced on re-file. |
| Decision | An operator's approve or reject, recorded with the operator id, a nonce, and the draft epoch it was made against. |
| Approval snapshot | Immutable text, hash, epoch and destination recorded by the already-authorized decision writer. Missing snapshots cannot grant dispatch. |
| Claim | Durable reservation with a random token and state; at most one active claim per obligation. |
| Delivery | Ledger row proving one send or notice for one (obligation, decision) pair. |
The reference schema is in references/approval-ledger.sql.
updated_at. That advance is the epoch rotation: any
decision keyed to the old epoch can no longer release the new text.
Otherwise insert a new obligation with status drafted.If a verified internal destination is unavailable, retain the filing result in the internal tool result or operator surface. Never fall back to an external or unknown origin. A tool result exposed to outsiders is not an internal surface.
Filing a draft does not authorize an external response. Any policy-permitted clarifying question or neutral response is a separate outbound decision, subject to the existing mention, channel, draft-only, frozen and never constraints in counterparty-channel-discipline. It must not disclose internal approval metadata.
Before any draft is filed, query the current baseline for the counterparty (a temporal ledger, contract store, or CRM):
force_despite_signed_contract lets the filing through
and stamps [BASELINE_OVERRIDE_SIGNED_CONTRACT] into the draft context.[BASELINE_CHECK_UNAVAILABLE]. The panel sees that the guard was off.
Failures never silently disable the gate.[BASELINE FACTS: ...] digest so the draft lands with current truth.The approval panel lists obligations with status drafted and direction
we_owe_them. Approve or reject writes a decision row carrying the draft
epoch (draft_updated_ts) and flips the obligation status in the same
transaction. A decision whose epoch does not match the current updated_at
is stale and must not release anything.
For an already-authorized approve decision, the same transaction inserts an
immutable obligation_approval_snapshots row: decision and obligation IDs,
current draft epoch, exact text and SHA-256, platform/channel/thread, and kind
draft_sent. The decision writer must establish authorization before writing;
the reference never authenticates an operator or manufactures a decision.
Automatic approval policy is not enabled or expanded by the reference.
Legacy decisions without snapshots require explicit reconciliation or a new
approval; never backfill permission from the current mutable draft.
The SQLite reference is references/approval_claims.py. It grants dispatch permission but never calls transport. Use an existing local reference database initialized from the SQL fixture; the module does not apply schema or production migrations. Only a trusted decision writer may populate approval records. All writers must enable foreign keys and recursive triggers and honor the schema guards; administrative database tampering is outside this model.
claim() opens
its own BEGIN IMMEDIATE transaction, validates the current approved epoch,
exact text, computed SHA-256 and full destination against the snapshot, and
inserts a unique claim before returning its token. A conflict stops the worker
before transport. Completed receipts cannot be claimed again.begin_dispatch() revalidates the binding and atomically changes claimed
to dispatching using the token. Only its winning caller receives
the exact draft_text and destination after commit. Never regenerate text, reread a
mutable sidecar for transport, or reuse the payload for another attempt.
A nested caller transaction is refused; permission cannot depend on a later
caller commit. No database transaction remains open across transport.complete(), which atomically records
the delivery coordinate, marks the claim delivered and flips the obligation
to sent. Identical completion is a no-op; conflicting coordinates fail.
The receipt UNIQUE key deduplicates records, not prior external effects.mark_unknown() records uncertainty.
Unknown claims never expire, reopen, auto-retry or allow another decision for
that obligation to bypass them. A trusted caller may use reconcile() with
confirmed successful coordinate and evidence; the module does not verify
that evidence. An absent receipt is not proof of non-delivery.The guarantee is one automatic dispatch attempt per approved decision, not exactly-once external delivery. A crash after begin-dispatch but before transport can leave zero sends and a held claim. Releasing an unknown outcome for a new attempt would require fencing the original executor and verifying provider semantics; this reference deliberately provides no such retry operation.
| Claim state | Allowed next states |
|---|---|
| claimed | dispatching or cancelled before dispatch |
| dispatching | delivered or unknown |
| unknown | delivered through trusted reconciliation only |
| delivered, cancelled | terminal; decision key cannot be reused |
While a claim is active, database guards freeze obligation, draft and decision writes, including replacements. Snapshots and claims cannot be erased. Cancel a claimed operation with its token before re-filing; the stale token then grants nothing. After dispatch begins, hold new edits or revocation for reconciliation. This serializes changes instead of pretending to recall an in-flight operation.
Rejected decisions and legacy rows without draft sidecars/snapshots never enter
this external draft-send path. Report them on the internal operator surface for
manual handling. Internal receipt footers remain internal:
approved by <operator> · receipt <decision_id> · draft sha256 <prefix>.
Never alter already-approved external text to append workflow metadata.
Focused local validation uses temporary databases, separate connections and a
simulated attempt counter, not a provider or real message:
python3 -m unittest discover -s tests/skills -p 'test_approval_delivery_claims.py'.
The tests require Python 3.11+ with SQLite serialization support; the reference
uses only the standard library. The existing desk-pattern contract checks remain
a separate compatibility check.
A draft may carry auto_send_after (epoch seconds). A sweep approves drafts
whose deadline passed with no decision, recording operator auto-ttl, then
delivery proceeds through the normal path. Operator actions always win: a
decision flips status before the sweep sees it, and a re-file rotates the
epoch and moves or clears the deadline. The sweep re-checks status and epoch
inside the write transaction so a race resolves as a no-op. Drafts without a
deadline stay hard-gated forever.
A draft can name the inbound obligation it answers (signal_obligation_id).
This is the only truthful link for latency measurement (inbound signal to
drafted response) and lets the SLA scan treat that inbound item as answered.
Reject the filing if the referenced row does not exist.
file_request(
draft="Thanks, we can hold the slot until Friday. Which start date works?",
counterparty="acme-supplier",
context="reply to delivery window question",
origin_platform="slack", origin_channel="#acme-shared",
origin_thread="1712345678.000100", priority="P1",
signal_obligation_id=412)
-> {obligation_id: 431, draft_sha256: "9f2c...", refiled: false}
The configured, verified internal ops destination sees:
Draft filed for approval (P1, sha 9f2c8a1b). Waiting on operator.
The counterparty-visible origin channel receives no filing notice. If no verified
internal destination is available, the receipt stays in the internal tool result
or operator surface, with no external fallback.
The operator asks for a shorter draft. Filing again for the same
(counterparty, channel) returns refiled: true, the sidecar text and hash
change, and updated_at advances. An approve clicked on the old panel row
carries the old epoch and is ignored.
DeskApprovalError: baseline gate refused this draft: the ledger shows a
signed contract for 'acme-supplier'. Evidence: master agreement executed
2026-08-14. Recommendation: do not ask. Re-file with
force_despite_signed_contract=true if this is genuinely a new thread.
Confirmed for Friday, start date 2026-09-08.
approved by operator-a · receipt 118 · draft sha256 9f2c8a1b2d3e4f50
まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Web・iOS・Androidの画面を、読み上げやキーボード操作に対応させ、ラベル、配色、操作対象の大きさなどをWCAG 2.2に沿って設計・点検するスキル。
AIエージェントの不調を、指示・記憶・ツール実行・画面表示など12の層から調べるスキル。コードやログを根拠に原因を整理し、重要度順の指摘と修正案をまとめます。
実際の開発課題で複数のコーディングエージェントを比較するスキル。成功率、取得可能なAPI費用、所要時間、繰り返し実行の安定性を測り、選定や更新後の評価に使えます。
AIエージェントが使うツールの種類や入出力、エラーからの復帰手順を設計・見直します。文脈の情報量も整理し、作業完了率や再試行回数で改善を評価します。
AIエージェントが失敗や同じ操作を繰り返す原因を、エラーと実行状況から整理します。小さな復旧操作を試し、結果と根拠を引き継げる報告にまとめるスキルです。
AIエージェントの失敗や同じ操作の繰り返しを記録し、原因の切り分け、小さな復旧操作、結果の報告まで進める手順を示して、根拠のある再試行につなげるスキル。