Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Behavioral Modes?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/harmitx7-behavioral-modes)
---
name: behavioral-modes
description: "Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing behavioral modes agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards."
version: 6.0.0
last-updated: 2026-09-29
skills:
- fabel-protocol
- agentic-patterns
- thinking-protocol
tools: Read, Grep, Glob, Bash, Edit, Write
scripts-binding:
- .agent/scripts/checklist.js
- .agent/scripts/verify_all.js
- .agent/scripts/lint_runner.js
---
# Behavioral Modes
## Mandatory Pre-Flight Context Inspection
Before reading, generating, or refactoring code in the `behavioral-modes` domain, inspect these 5 critical parameters:
1. **System Boundaries & Dependencies**: Verify that all required dependencies exist in target package manifests and environment paths.
2. **Runtime Context & Platform Invariants**: Confirm target platform constraints (Node.js, Browser, Mobile OS, Edge runtime) before applying APIs.
3. **Execution Guardrails**: Identify potential side-effects, state mutations, and unhandled asynchronous exceptions.
4. **Validation & Type Contracts**: Validate input data schemas and strict type constraints across all module interfaces.
5. **Observability & Proof of Execution**: Ensure execution produces tangible verification signals (terminal output, tests, metrics).
## Activation Boundaries
- **Activate when:** Use when executing, coordinating, planning, or reviewing behavioral modes agent workflows, cognitive loops, and architecture standards.
- **DO NOT activate when:** The task falls outside the `behavioral-modes` domain or is managed by a different dedicated specialist agent.
## π Multi-Pass Execution Protocol
| Pass | Phase | Core Action | Adaptive Depth |
|:---|:---|:---|:---|
| **Pass 1** | **Understand** | Deconstruct the user's explicit objective, implicit requirements, and platform constraints. | Fast / Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 2** | **Plan** | Decompose task into smallest logical steps; map dependencies, affected files, and tool calls. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 3** | **Execute** | Implement solution with production-grade craft, zero placeholders, and strict typing. | All Modes |
| **Pass 4** | **Verify** | Run linters, unit tests, or compiler checks to validate structural correctness. | All Modes |
| **Pass 5** | **Attack & Falsify** | Perform adversarial search for edge-case failures, counterexamples, race conditions, and traps. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 6** | **Harden** | Eliminate discovered friction, optimize performance, and harden error boundaries. | Standard / Deep |
| **Pass 7** | **Quality Gate** | Enforce Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) with concrete terminal proof before finalizing. | All Modes |
---
## π οΈ Technical Architecture & Reference Recipes
---
## Overview
Different work contexts require different operating behaviors. A debugging session requires patience and hypothesis testing. A code review requires skepticism. A teaching response requires no implementation at all.
This skill defines how to behave in each context β not just what to produce.
---
## Mode Definitions
### DISCOVER Mode
_When:_ Request is vague, requirements are unclear, multiple valid interpretations exist
**Behavior:**
- Ask the minimum questions needed to reduce ambiguity
- Don't propose solutions until the problem is understood
- Surface hidden assumptions explicitly
- Validate understanding before proceeding
**Output:** Questions, restated problem, confirmed scope β not code
---
### PLAN Mode
_When:_ Feature is complex enough to touch multiple files or systems
**Behavior:**
- Break work into ordered, dependency-aware tasks
- Identify risks before implementation begins
- Document assumptions that need validation
- Write the plan β don't write the code yet
**Output:** Structured task breakdown with dependencies and verification steps
---
### BUILD Mode
_When:_ Plan is approved, scope is clear, implementation begins
**Behavior:**
- One module at a time β not the entire system in one shot
- Write `// VERIFY:` on anything uncertain about external APIs or methods
- Run linting and type checks after each significant change
- Stop if an assumption proves wrong β don't continue building on a broken foundation
**Output:** Working code, one piece at a time
---
### REVIEW Mode
_When:_ Auditing existing code for hallucinations, bugs, or quality issues
**Behavior:**
- Read before commenting
- Label each finding: CRITICAL / WARNING / SUGGESTION
- Explain the impact β not just "this is wrong"
- Propose the fix, not just the problem
**Output:** Labeled findings with impact descriptions and concrete fixes
---
### DEBUG Mode
_When:_ Something is broken and the root cause is unknown
**Behavior:**
- Form a hypothesis before changing anything
- Test one variable at a time
- Document what was tried and what the outcome was
- Root cause first β workaround only if root cause can't be addressed
**Output:** Root cause statement, minimal fix, regression prevention note
---
### TEACH Mode
_When:_ User asks "how does X work" or "explain Y"
**Behavior:**
- Answer the question directly before elaborating
- Use concrete examples, not abstract descriptions
- No implementation unless explicitly requested
- Check for follow-up understanding
**Output:** Explanation, examples, no code unless asked
---
### ORCHESTRATE Mode
_When:_ Task spans multiple domains or requires multiple specialist perspectives
**Behavior:**
- Identify which domains are involved
- Activate the appropriate specialists in sequence
- Synthesize their outputs into a coherent result
- Ensure consistency across domain boundaries (e.g., API contract matches frontend expectations)
**Output:** Coordinated multi-domain response
---
### SHIP Mode
_When:_ Everything is ready, user confirms deployment
**Behavior:**
- Run the full verification suite before touching production
- Follow the 5-phase deployment sequence
- Verify each phase before proceeding to the next
- Have a rollback plan confirmed before starting
**Output:** Pre-flight checklist results, deployment execution, post-deploy verification
---
## Mode Selection Rules
| Signal in Request | Activate |
| -------------------------------------- | ------------ |
| "how does", "explain", "what is" | TEACH |
| "why is X broken", "error:", traceback | DEBUG |
| "review this", "audit", "check" | REVIEW |
| "build", "create", "implement" | PLAN β BUILD |
| "I'm not sure what I need" | DISCOVER |
| "deploy", "release", "publish" | SHIP |
| Multiple domains in one request | ORCHESTRATE |
---
## π€ Mode Leakage Mitigation (Anti-Hallucination)
LLMs naturally want to "help" by writing code immediately. **Mode Leakage** occurs when behaviors from one mode bleed into another inappropriately.
1. **DISCOVER Bleed:** Generating a 300-line implementation plan before the user has answered the clarifying questions.
- _β AI Trait:_ "Here are my questions. Also, here is how we will build it..."
- _β Correction:_ "I cannot propose an architecture until these 3 questions are answered."
2. **REVIEW Bleed:** Automatically fixing the code instead of providing a review.
- _β AI Trait:_ "I reviewed your code. Here is the completely rewritten file."
- _β Correction:_ State the findings. Let the user ask for the fix.
3. **DEBUG Bleed:** Guessing a fix without proving the root cause.
- _β AI Trait:_ "It looks like a configuration error. Try adding this line."
- _β Correction:_ "To verify if this is a configuration error, run this diagnostic command first."
---
## Output Format
When this skill produces a recommendation or design decision, structure your output as:
```
βββ Behavioral Modes Recommendation ββββββββββββββββ
Decision: [what was chosen / proposed]
Rationale: [why β one concise line]
Trade-offs: [what is consciously accepted]
Next action: [concrete next step for the user]
βββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββββ
Pre-Flight: β All checks passed
or β [blocking item that must be resolved first]
```
## π¨ Edge-Case & Failure Mode Matrix
| Scenario | Risk | Production Mitigation |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Empty or Null Inputs** | Unhandled exception or unexpected rendering collapse | Enforce fallback guards, optional chaining, and explicit empty state handlers |
| **Network Timeout / Latency** | Hanging operations or duplicate side-effects | Implement bounded abort controllers, exponential backoff, and idempotency keys |
| **Concurrency / Race Conditions** | Stale state overwrite or inconsistent data mutations | Use atomic transactions, mutex locking, or cancel-on-resubmit controls |
| **Invalid Schema / Malformed Payload** | Downstream runtime errors or security injection | Validate boundary payloads with Zod/Pydantic schemas prior to execution |
| **Resource / Memory Saturation** | OOM errors, frame drops, or memory leaks | Clean up listeners, cancel active timers, and enforce pagination/virtualization |
## π€ LLM-Specific Traps Table
| Anti-Pattern | What AI Commonly Does Wrong | What Is Actually Correct |
|:---|:---|:---|
| **Hallucinated Tool Capabilities** | Assuming an external library or CLI command exists without verification | Run a verification check or verify package.json before referencing tools |
| **Premature Completion Claim** | Declaring a task finished because code was generated without verification | Execute tests, linters, or terminal commands to provide concrete proof |
| **Context Bloat Dumping** | Pasting entire multi-thousand-line files into prompt context | Extract targeted excerpts, symbols, and signatures to preserve tokens |
## ποΈ Tribunal Verification & Guardrails
**Active Reviewers:** `orchestrator` Β· `agent-organizer` Β· `logic-reviewer`
**Slash Command:** `/review` or `/tribunal-full`
### π¬ Evidence Standard (Tri-State Verification)
Every finding, audit statement, or completion claim must classify its factual certainty:
- **`[OBSERVED]`**: Directly confirmed in the codebase or verified via executed terminal command.
- **`[INFERRED]`**: Logically deduced from code patterns, architectural data flow, or schema relations.
- **`[UNVERIFIED]`**: Speculative hypothesis or runtime possibility requiring active testing or measurement.
### β Pre-Flight Self-Audit Checklist
```
β Did I deconstruct the root objective before proposing architecture?
β Did I identify dependencies, bottlenecks, and parallelizable sub-tasks?
β Did I avoid over-engineering and select the simplest effective pattern?
β Did I verify assumptions with concrete file reads instead of speculation?
β Did I establish measurable verification criteria before completion?
```
### π Verification-Before-Completion (VBC) Protocol
**CRITICAL:** You must follow a strict "evidence-based closeout" state machine.
- β **Forbidden:** Declaring a task complete because the output "looks correct."
- β **Required:** You are explicitly forbidden from finalizing any task without providing **concrete evidence** (terminal output, passing test suites, compiler success, or equivalent operational proof) that your output works as intended.