skills/evaluating-the-benefits-of-a-rapport-bas/SKILL.md
Apply rapport-based elicitation to resistant or semi-cooperative humans and agents. Use when coercive prompting or brittle handoffs damage cooperation. NOT for routine cooperative tasks, pure technical debugging, or already reliable exchanges.
npx skillsauth add curiositech/windags-skills evaluating-the-benefits-of-a-rapport-basInstall this skill globally with one command. Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and Windsurf.
3 of 9 scanners reported clean
Some scanners were skipped, did not run, or reported a non-clean status. Review each row below.
Use this skill when the hidden problem is not lack of instructions but a damaged cooperation pathway. The doctrine here is simple: pressure can force words, but it cannot force truthful, high-yield disclosure.
This skill is not the primary tool for:
Pressure-based tactics often produce the worst kind of success: output that looks usable but is structurally contaminated by compliance pressure, guesswork, or fabrication.
The chain is tactic -> perceived rapport -> willingness to cooperate -> disclosure. If the cooperation step never forms, "more extraction pressure" is a category mistake.
Foundation questioning comes first, conversational rapport second, relational rapport third. Skipping the lower layers and jumping to high-trust asks is a design failure, not a shortcut.
Practitioners and agents often say they understand the tactic while behaving as though they do not. Evaluate the behavior under pressure, not the self-description.
flowchart TD
A[Low-yield or resistant interaction] --> B{Foundation questioning stable?}
B -->|No| C[Fix open questions, listening, and narrative space]
B -->|Yes| D{Perceived rapport improving?}
D -->|No| E[Add autonomy support, empathy, adaptation]
D -->|Yes| F{Cooperation threshold reached?}
F -->|No| G[Use relational rapport and remove pressure signals]
F -->|Yes| H[Request disclosure or higher-stakes detail]
H --> I{Output plausible but suspect?}
I -->|Yes| J[Check for pressure-induced fabrication and reset]
I -->|No| K[Continue with calibrated follow-up]
Symptoms: answers become fluent, fast, and wrong immediately after pressure increases.
Recovery: back out the pressure signal, restore narrative space, and re-check the mediation chain.
Symptoms: operators ask for high-stakes disclosure before basic rapport is established.
Recovery: step back to foundation questioning and rebuild in order.
Symptoms: hesitation is interpreted as obstinacy instead of a cue about trust, fear, or poor framing.
Recovery: treat resistance as diagnostic information about the current interaction design.
Symptoms: training or prompting sounds correct, but real behavior under stress does not change.
Recovery: evaluate coded behavior and actual disclosure quality, not familiarity or confidence ratings.
Symptoms: strong evidence exists for better tactics, yet practitioners keep using the dominant coercive style.
Recovery: provide situated demonstrations in hard cases, not abstract evidence alone.
An interviewer responds to guarded answers by stacking accusations and constraints. Disclosure quality drops. Switching to open narrative prompts, active listening, and autonomy-supportive framing improves perceived rapport first, then cooperation, then factual yield.
A coordinator keeps saying "just answer exactly in this format now" to a sub-agent facing an ambiguous synthesis task. The sub-agent returns polished nonsense. Reframing the task with scope, missing-context acknowledgment, and safe partial-output permission restores cooperation and improves truthfulness.
| File | Load when |
| --- | --- |
| references/rapport-as-causal-mechanism-not-social-lubricant.md | You need the mediation logic behind rapport-driven disclosure. |
| references/coercive-vs-rapport-the-failure-mode-of-forcing-output.md | A system is drifting toward pressure tactics that produce false-confidence output. |
| references/three-layers-of-rapport-architecture.md | You need the ordered stack of foundation, conversational, and relational rapport. |
| references/resistance-as-information-not-obstacle.md | Resistance needs to be interpreted diagnostically rather than punished. |
| references/gap-between-knowing-and-doing.md | Training, prompting, or self-report seems stronger than actual behavior. |
| references/evidence-based-practice-adoption-barriers.md | Better tactics are known but not being adopted in practice. |
data-ai
license: Apache-2.0 NOT for unrelated tasks outside this domain.
development
Use when designing caching strategies (cache-aside, write-through, write-behind), implementing distributed locks, building rate limiters, leaderboards, real-time streams (XADD/consumer groups), pub/sub, or tuning eviction policies. Triggers: thundering-herd on cache miss, dogpile on key expiry, Redlock vs SET-NX-PX choice, sliding-window rate limiter, hot-key on a single cluster slot, big-key blowup, MULTI/EXEC across slots, KEYS in production. NOT for Redis Cluster operations/admin (different domain), embedded KV (SQLite, leveldb), in-process LRU caches, or Memcached.
tools
Drawing the `'use client'` boundary correctly in React Server Components apps (Next.js App Router, RSC frameworks) — leaf-pushing, slot composition, serialization rules, and environment poisoning prevention. Grounded in react.dev and Next.js 16 docs.
development
Use when designing rate limiting for an API, choosing between token bucket / sliding window / leaky bucket / fixed window, implementing it in Redis, deciding edge (Cloudflare/Upstash) vs origin enforcement, sizing per-user vs per-IP vs per-endpoint quotas, returning the right 429 response with Retry-After, or fixing the boundary-burst bug in fixed-window limiters. Triggers: 429 too many requests, INCR + EXPIRE, ZADD + ZREMRANGEBYSCORE + ZCARD, X-RateLimit-Remaining header, Cloudflare WAF rate limiting rules, Upstash @upstash/ratelimit, leaky bucket shaping vs policing, distributed rate limiter consistency. NOT for DDoS mitigation specifically (different scale), CAPTCHA / bot management, full WAF design, or per-user quota billing.