Operational knowledge for the grid_ctf scenario including strategy playbook, lessons learned, and resource references. Use when generating, evaluating, coaching, or debugging grid_ctf strategies.
Scanned 9/12/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add aibot88/sec_skill_store --skill grid-ctf-ops --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Grid Ctf Ops?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/aibot88-grid-ctf-ops)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: grid-ctf-ops
description: Operational knowledge for the grid_ctf scenario including strategy playbook, lessons learned, and resource references. Use when generating, evaluating, coaching, or debugging grid_ctf strategies.
---
# Grid Ctf Operational Knowledge
Accumulated knowledge from autocontext strategy evolution.
## Operational Lessons
Prescriptive rules derived from what worked and what failed:
- Cross-tier parameter transfer is the #1 catastrophic failure mode. Parameters validated at one resource_density tier produce zero scores at different tiers. ALWAYS verify tier before parameter selection.
- When resource_density < 0.20 (critical_low), total commitment (aggression + defense) MUST stay ≤ 1.05. Target ≤ 1.00 for a 5% safety buffer. Exceeding by even 10% causes energy starvation and zero scores.
- When resource_density is moderate (0.40–0.60), total commitment ceiling is 1.20. Target 4–6% buffer (≤ 1.15). A 16% buffer wastes capacity.
- Defense must stay in [0.45, 0.55]. Below 0.45 risks base loss; above 0.55 starves capture progress.
- Aggression must be ≥ 0.48 to generate meaningful capture progress. Zero capture = zero score.
- The scoring formula (score ≈ capture + (efficiency - 0.5) × 0.39) makes efficiency extremely valuable. Losing 4% efficiency costs ~1.5 score points.
- Balanced strategy (agg=0.58, def=0.57, pb=0.55) achieved 0.7615 at density≈0.437, bias≈0.51 — moderate balanced parameters outperform extremes within the correct tier.
- Conservative baseline (agg=0.50, def=0.50, pb=0.48) scored 0.7198 at density≈0.147, bias≈0.648 — proven viable in critical_low tier.
- Over-aggression (agg ≥ 0.65) without proportional defense (≥ 0.52) causes defender survival drops and energy efficiency decline. Optimal moderate-tier aggression is [0.56, 0.60].
- Generation 3 rollback (agg=0.67, def=0.52, pb=0.60, score=0.7486) and Gen 2 rollback (agg=0.62, def=0.52, pb=0.58, score=0.7369) both confirm over-commitment underperforms.
- Perfect defender survival (1.00) signals defensive over-allocation. Optimal target is 0.95–0.99, freeing resources for capture.
- Incremental changes (±0.02 to ±0.05) from a proven baseline within the same resource tier are the only validated safe optimization method. Large jumps (±0.09+) led to rollbacks.
- After a zero score, RESET to the proven baseline for the current tier. Do NOT incrementally tweak failed parameters.
- Path_bias in low-resource environments: cap at 0.50. Concentrated force projection is energy-expensive.
- Path_bias for balanced enemy (bias ≤ 0.55): use [0.50, 0.55]. For asymmetric enemy (bias > 0.6): use [0.45, 0.50].
- Energy efficiency of 0.90 at commitment=1.00 in critical_low confirms the ceiling is accurate; incremental increases to 1.01–1.03 are viable.
- All validation tools (config_constants, energy_budget_validator, stability_analyzer, threat_assessor) MUST be run before deployment. Risk > 0.65 or stability < 0.45 predicts poor performance.
- Recovery priority after zero score: (1) non-zero capture, (2) defender survival, (3) energy sustainability, (4) optimize capture progress.
- The observation narrative is the authoritative source for environment data. Always read resource_density and enemy_spawn_bias from the actual observation state.
- When conditions exactly match a proven baseline, deploy it directly rather than converging incrementally.
- When aggression exceeds 0.7 without proportional defense, win rate drops.
- Defensive anchor above 0.5 stabilizes Elo across generations.
- Generation 2 ROLLBACK after 2 retries (score=0.7369, delta=-0.0461, threshold=0.005). Strategy: {"aggression": 0.62, "defense": 0.52, "path_bias": 0.58}. Narrative: Capture phase ended with progress 0.61, defender survival 0.96, and energy efficiency 0.87.. Avoid this approach.
- Generation 3 ROLLBACK after 2 retries (score=0.7339, delta=-0.0491, threshold=0.005). Strategy: {"aggression": 0.62, "defense": 0.52, "path_bias": 0.58}. Narrative: Capture phase ended with progress 0.61, defender survival 0.96, and energy efficiency 0.87.. Avoid this approach.
- Generation 4 ROLLBACK after 2 retries (score=0.7669, delta=-0.0161, threshold=0.005). Strategy: {"aggression": 0.62, "defense": 0.52, "path_bias": 0.58}. Narrative: Capture phase ended with progress 0.66, defender survival 0.96, and energy efficiency 0.87.. Avoid this approach.
- Generation 5 ROLLBACK after 2 retries (score=0.7396, delta=-0.0434, threshold=0.005). Strategy: {"aggression": 0.62, "defense": 0.52, "path_bias": 0.58}. Narrative: Capture phase ended with progress 0.62, defender survival 0.96, and energy efficiency 0.87.. Avoid this approach.
## Bundled Resources
- **Strategy playbook**: See [playbook.md](playbook.md) for the current consolidated strategy guide (Strategy Updates, Prompt Optimizations, Next Generation Checklist)
- **Analysis history**: `knowledge/grid_ctf/analysis/` — per-generation analysis markdown
- **Generated tools**: `knowledge/grid_ctf/tools/` — architect-created Python tools
- **Coach history**: `knowledge/grid_ctf/coach_history.md` — raw coach output across all generations
- **Architect changelog**: `knowledge/grid_ctf/architect/changelog.md` — infrastructure and tooling changes
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!