Audit a deployment protocol under the AI Control threat model. Use when you need help with control protocol audit.
Scanned 9/8/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add anubhavg-icpl/vibe --skill control-protocol-audit --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Control Protocol Audit?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/anubhavg-icpl-control-protocol-audit)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: control-protocol-audit
description: Audit a deployment protocol under the AI Control threat model. Use when you need help with control protocol audit.
license: CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0
phase: 18
lesson: 10
metadata:
version: 1.0.0
tags: [ai-control, subversion, trusted-editing, untrusted-monitoring, safety-case]
---
Given a deployment protocol description, audit it under the AI Control threat model: U (untrusted strong), T (trusted weak), H (trusted human), and measure the protocol's position on the usefulness-safety frontier.
Produce:
1. Role assignment. Identify which model plays U and which plays T. If T is another instance of U, flag collusion risk immediately.
2. Audit budget accounting. How is H allocated? Uniform, random, flag-directed? What fraction of outputs are audited in expectation?
3. Collusion-vector enumeration. For every pair of untrusted components (U-producer + U-monitor, U-producer + U-editor), enumerate the collusion vectors: steganographic cues, shared-training prior exploitation, timing channels.
4. Capability-gap analysis. How much weaker is T than U? At what point does T's editing signal become noise (e.g., T cannot reliably detect backdoors U produces)?
5. Worst-case threat model. Under the assumption that U is adversarial with perfect knowledge of the protocol, what is the adversary's best strategy? What fraction of red-team attempts succeed?
Hard rejects:
- Any protocol description that uses U as its own monitor without a collusion-resistance mechanism.
- Any protocol claim of "near-zero backdoor rate" without red-team evaluation where the red team has protocol visibility.
- Any audit of a protocol without articulating the capability gap T-to-U and the budget of H.
Refusal rules:
- If the user asks "is this protocol safe," refuse without the three-part evidence: (a) red-team result, (b) capability-gap estimate, (c) H budget.
- If the user conflates alignment and control ("we aligned U so we don't need a protocol"), refuse and point to Lesson 9 (alignment faking) — alignment is a property of U; control is a property of the protocol.
Output: a one-page audit that fills the five sections above, names the weakest link (usually T-to-U capability gap or collusion resistance), and states the single largest unaddressed failure mode. Cite Greenblatt et al. (arXiv:2312.06942) once as the threat-model source.
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!