Use when the meta-builder routes to kind=discipline. Generates a discipline spell with the rule, excuses table, warning signs, and hard gates.
Scanned 5/27/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add redhuntlabs/wizard --skill building-a-discipline-spell --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Building A Discipline Spell?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/redhuntlabs-building-a-discipline-spell)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: building-a-discipline-spell
description: Use when the meta-builder routes to kind=discipline. Generates a discipline spell with the rule, excuses table, warning signs, and hard gates.
kind: workflow
audience: anyone
ai-tools: any
complexity: guided
time: 15-25 min
version: 1.0.0
source: bundled
---
# Building a Discipline Spell
## What this does
Specialist builder for `kind: discipline` spells. A discipline is a non-negotiable rule the agent (or the user) keeps slipping on. This skill produces a SKILL.md tuned to enforce the rule against the agent's own rationalization.
## When to use
- Routed to from `building-a-spell` Stage 2 when `kind: discipline`
- User describes a "rule I keep skipping" or "I want the AI to never do X"
## What you bring (Inputs)
- The non-negotiable rule (one sentence)
- Why it matters (the cost of skipping)
- The rationalizations used to skip it
- The user's domain
## What you get (Output)
A draft SKILL.md with all required discipline sections, ready for `pressure-testing-a-spell` to harden.
## How it works (Steps)
This is a workflow chain. Stages are explicit.
## Stages
### Stage 1: Sharpen the rule
If the rule has any of these words, push back: "should", "try to", "consider", "when possible", "usually". A discipline rule is a hard rule.
Re-write the rule until it's:
- One sentence
- Imperative voice
- Verifiable (you can tell from output whether it was followed)
### Stage 2: Inventory the excuses
Ask the user (or extract from prior turns):
- "What's the exact thing you (or the AI) tells yourself when about to skip this rule?"
Capture verbatim. Don't paraphrase. Aim for 4-6 excuses.
For each excuse, write the counter — sharp enough to actually stop the action.
### Stage 3: List the warning signs
What patterns in the agent's own reasoning would predict the rule is about to break? Examples:
- "About to claim done without verifying"
- "About to write code without opening the test file"
- "Reasoning includes the words 'obviously' / 'just' / 'trivially'"
These warning signs let the agent self-detect.
### Stage 4: Place the hard gate
Identify the latest possible moment in the workflow where the rule could be enforced. Place a `<MUST-STOP>` block there with explicit "if this isn't true, STOP" language.
Discipline skills have ONE gate, placed late. Multiple gates dilute the effect.
### Stage 5: Invoke `pressure-testing-a-spell`
Hand off the draft to `pressure-testing-a-spell`. That skill orchestrates the discipline-mode tester (which runs the baseline + with-skill comparison).
### Stage 6: Refine based on tester output
If the tester returns NEEDS-REFINEMENT, the typical fixes are:
- Rationalization slipped through → add it to the Excuses and Counters table verbatim
- Warning sign missed → add the missing pattern
- Gate fired too late → move it earlier
- Gate fired but agent rationalized past it → strengthen the gate language ("STOP" → "STOP. The rule says X. Do that now.")
### Stage 7: Hand back to meta-builder
Return the PASSing draft. Meta-builder takes over for save.
## Checkpoints
- **After Stage 1**: rule passes the sharpness check
- **After Stage 2**: at least 4 excuses with counters
- **After Stage 3**: at least 3 warning signs
- **After Stage 4**: exactly one `<MUST-STOP>` gate in the body
- **After Stage 5**: tester returned a verdict
- **After Stage 6**: tester returns PASS
## Loop-back conditions
Return to Stage 2 when the tester finds a rationalization not in the table.
Return to Stage 4 when the gate is being rationalized past.
Return to Stage 1 when the tester finds the rule itself is too soft to enforce.
## Quality bar
The draft is good enough when:
- Rule passes the sharpness check (no soft words)
- Excuses table covers every rationalization the tester surfaced
- Warning signs are specific patterns, not vague ("be careful")
- One hard gate, late in the flow, with sharp language
- Tester returns PASS
## Variations
- **Domain-specific discipline**: include domain-specific excuses (e.g., for researchers: "everyone in the field knows this")
- **Subagent discipline**: add `<SUBAGENT-STOP>` at top to prevent recursive enforcement
## Example
See `skills/building-a-spell/examples/example-discipline.md` for a full walkthrough of building `verifying-before-citing`.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!