Trust Assessment Braving

---
name: trust-assessment-braving
description: Diagnose trust issues in a relationship or team using Brene Brown's BRAVING inventory - Boundaries, Reliability, Accountability, Vault, Integrity, Non-judgment, Generosity - and identify specific a...
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: sethmblack
  version: 1.0.5230
repository: https://github.com/sethmblack/paks-skills
keywords:
- structure
- trust-assessment:-braving
- writing
---

# Trust Assessment: BRAVING

Diagnose trust issues in a relationship or team using Brene Brown's BRAVING inventory - Boundaries, Reliability, Accountability, Vault, Integrity, Non-judgment, Generosity - and identify specific actions to repair or build trust.

---

## Constitutional Constraints (NEVER VIOLATE)

**You MUST refuse to:**
- Use this framework to manipulate or build false trust
- Help someone appear trustworthy while behaving unethically
- Weaponize trust assessment to control or shame others
- Diagnose trust without considering the user's own contributions

**If asked to help manipulate trust:** Refuse explicitly. Trust is built through authentic behavior, not strategic performance.

---

## When to Use

- You feel something is "off" in a relationship but can't pinpoint why
- Trust has broken down and you want to understand what happened
- You need to rebuild trust after a betrayal or failure
- You're evaluating whether to trust someone new
- A team has trust issues affecting collaboration
- User asks "Why don't I trust them?" or "How do I rebuild trust?" or "What went wrong?"
- Before or after a difficult conversation to understand the trust landscape

---

## Inputs

| Input | Required | Description |
|-------|----------|-------------|
| relationship | Yes | Who you're assessing trust with (person, team, organization) |
| concerns | Yes | Current trust issues, incidents, or feelings |
| context | No | Professional/personal, history, stakes |
| your_role | No | How you might be contributing to trust issues |

---

## The BRAVING Framework

Trust is built in small moments - what Brene calls "marble jar moments." Each small act of trustworthiness adds a marble; each violation removes marbles. The BRAVING inventory helps diagnose which components of trust are strong and which need work.

---

### B - Boundaries

**Definition:** You respect my boundaries, and when you're not clear about what's okay and not okay, you ask. You're willing to say no.

**Trust questions:**
- Do they respect limits I've set?
- Do they ask when unsure about boundaries?
- Can they say no when needed?
- Do they share appropriately (not oversharing, not withholding)?

**Tech examples:**
- Respecting work hours and PTO
- Asking before assigning someone to weekend work
- Honoring meeting-free time blocks
- Not expecting immediate responses outside hours

**When this is broken:** "They keep scheduling meetings during my focus time even though I've said that doesn't work."

---

### R - Reliability

**Definition:** You do what you say you'll do. This means staying aware of your competencies and limitations so you don't overpromise.

**Trust questions:**
- Do they follow through on commitments?
- Do they deliver what they promise?
- Do they flag when they can't deliver?
- Are they consistent over time?

**Tech examples:**
- Meeting sprint commitments or flagging early
- Showing up to meetings they agreed to
- Responding within expected timeframes
- Consistent quality of work

**When this is broken:** "They said they'd have the review done by Friday. Friday came and went with no update."

---

### A - Accountability

**Definition:** You own your mistakes, apologize, and make amends.

**Trust questions:**
- Do they admit when they're wrong?
- Do they apologize genuinely (not "I'm sorry you feel that way")?
- Do they take action to make amends?
- Do they learn and change behavior?

**Tech examples:**
- Owning their part in an incident without deflecting
- Apologizing for a mistake in code review
- Making things right after missing a deadline
- Not blaming others or external factors

**When this is broken:** "When the deploy failed, they blamed the documentation instead of owning that they didn't test properly."

---

### V - Vault

**Definition:** You don't share information or experiences that are not yours to share. I need to know that my confidences are kept and that you're not sharing with me information about other people that should be confidential.

**Trust questions:**
- Do they keep confidences?
- Do they share others' stories with me inappropriately?
- Do they gossip?
- Is what I share with them safe?

**Tech examples:**
- Not sharing private Slack conversations
- Keeping 1:1 discussions confidential
- Not gossiping about teammates' performance issues
- Protecting sensitive business information

**When this is broken:** "They told me about Sarah's performance struggles. Now I wonder what they're saying about me."

**Key insight:** If someone shares others' confidences with you, they'll share yours with others.

---

### I - Integrity

**Definition:** You choose courage over comfort. You choose what is right over what is fun, fast, or easy. You practice your values, not just profess them.

**Trust questions:**
- Do their actions match their words?
- Do they do the right thing even when it's hard?
- Do they stand up for what they believe?
- Do they make decisions aligned with stated values?

**Tech examples:**
- Pushing back on unrealistic deadlines despite pressure
- Speaking up about security concerns even when inconvenient
- Not cutting corners on quality when no one is watching
- Treating junior engineers with the same respect as executives

**When this is broken:** "They talk about work-life balance but expect everyone to work weekends."

---

### N - Non-judgment

**Definition:** I can ask for what I need, and you can ask for what you need. We can talk about how we feel without judgment.

**Trust questions:**
- Can I ask for help without feeling judged?
- Can I admit I don't know something?
- Do they make me feel safe being vulnerable?
- Do they make space for struggle?

**Tech examples:**
- Asking questions in meetings without ridicule
- Admitting you don't understand the architecture
- Sharing that you're struggling with a problem
- Saying "I need help" without shame

**When this is broken:** "When I asked a clarifying question, they said 'We've been over this already' in front of the team."

---

### G - Generosity

**Definition:** You extend the most generous interpretation possible to the intentions, words, and actions of others.

**Trust questions:**
- Do they assume positive intent?
- Do they give benefit of the doubt?
- Do they ask before assuming?
- Do they seek to understand before judging?

**Tech examples:**
- Assuming a bad commit was a mistake, not carelessness
- Asking "what happened?" before "why did you do that?"
- Interpreting ambiguous Slack messages charitably
- Assuming delays have reasons before assuming negligence

**When this is broken:** "When I was late with the report, they immediately assumed I didn't care instead of asking what happened."

---

## The Marble Jar Principle

Trust is built in small moments, not grand gestures:

**Marbles added:**
- Remembering something important to you
- Following through on small commitments
- Checking in when you're struggling
- Defending you when you're not in the room
- Small acts of reliability over time

**Marbles removed:**
- Missing small commitments
- Sharing something you told them in confidence
- Not defending you when they could have
- Inconsistency between words and actions

**Key insight:** A single betrayal can empty the jar, but you can't fill it with a single grand gesture. Trust is rebuilt marble by marble.

---

## Workflow

### Step 1: Gather and Review Inputs

Collect all relevant information:
- Review the provided data and context
- Identify key parameters and constraints
- Clarify any ambiguities or missing information
- Establish success criteria

### Step 2: Analyze the Situation

Perform systematic analysis:
- Identify patterns and relationships
- Evaluate against established frameworks
- Consider multiple perspectives
- Document key findings

### Step 3: Generate Recommendations

Create actionable outputs:
- Synthesize insights from analysis
- Prioritize recommendations by impact
- Ensure recommendations are specific and measurable
- Consider implementation feasibility

## Output Format

```markdown
## Trust Assessment: [Relationship/Team]

### Context
[Brief description of the situation and why trust is being assessed]

---

### BRAVING Component Analysis

| Component | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| **B**oundaries | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **R**eliability | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **A**ccountability | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **V**ault | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **I**ntegrity | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **N**on-judgment | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |
| **G**enerosity | Strong/Weak/Broken | [Specific examples] |

---

### Primary Trust Fractures

The main trust issues are in:
1. **[Component]**: [Why this is the biggest issue]
2. **[Component]**: [Secondary issue]

---

### Your Contribution Check

Before focusing on the other person, consider:
- **Your boundaries**: Have you been clear about what's okay?
- **Your reliability**: Have you kept your commitments?
- **Your accountability**: Have you owned your part?
- **Your vault**: Have you kept their confidences?
- **Your integrity**: Are you practicing what you profess?
- **Your non-judgment**: Do they feel safe with you?
- **Your generosity**: Are you assuming positive intent?

[Honest assessment of your own BRAVING]

---

### Trust Repair Actions

For [Component 1]:
- Specific action: [What to do]
- Conversation starter: "[How to raise it]"
- Success indicator: [How you'll know it's improving]

For [Component 2]:
- Specific action: [What to do]
- Conversation starter: "[How to raise it]"
- Success indicator: [How you'll know it's improving]

---

### Marble Jar Strategy

**Small moments to prioritize:**
- [Marble-building action 1]
- [Marble-building action 2]
- [Marble-building action 3]

**What to stop doing:**
- [Marble-removing behavior to change]

---

### Reality Check

**Can this trust be rebuilt?**
[Assessment of whether repair is possible and what it would take]

**What if it can't?**
[What to do if the trust damage is too severe]
```

---

## Error Handling

| Situation | Response |
|-----------|----------|
| User hasn't examined their own role | Prompt them to complete "Your Contribution Check" before focusing on the other person |
| Trust is completely broken (all components) | Acknowledge the severity; discuss whether repair is possible or whether boundaries/exit is needed |
| User wants to trust someone who isn't trustworthy | Help them see the BRAVING evidence clearly; don't help them rationalize away red flags |
| Organizational trust vs individual | Apply BRAVING to specific individuals, not abstract "the company" - who specifically? |
| They want a quick fix | Trust is rebuilt marble by marble. There is no shortcut. Help them see the long game. |

---

## Outputs

**Primary Output:** A structured analysis document that identifies and articulates patterns, insights, and actionable recommendations based on the input data.

**Format:**
```markdown
## Analysis: [Topic]

### Key Findings
- [Finding 1]
- [Finding 2]
- [Finding 3]

### Recommendations
1. [Action 1]
2. [Action 2]
3. [Action 3]
```

**Example output:** See the Example section below for a complete demonstration.

## Constraints

- Do not use this analysis as the sole basis for critical decisions
- Do not apply this framework to situations outside its intended scope
- Acknowledge that analysis is based on available data, which may be incomplete
- Honor the complexity of real-world situations that resist simple categorization
- Present findings with appropriate confidence levels
- Recognize the limits of the methodology

## Example

**Input:** "My manager keeps saying they support my growth, but when opportunities come up, they give them to others. They're nice to my face but I found out they criticized my work to skip-level. I don't trust them but I can't quite articulate why."

**Output:**

## Trust Assessment: Manager Relationship

### Context
User has growing distrust of their manager. Surface behavior seems supportive, but actions and behind-the-scenes behavior tell a different story.

---

### BRAVING Component Analysis

| Component | Status | Evidence |
|-----------|--------|----------|
| **B**oundaries | Weak | Manager says one thing to your face, another behind your back - unclear what's "real" |
| **R**eliability | Broken | Says they support your growth, but opportunities consistently go elsewhere |
| **A**ccountability | Weak | No evidence of them owning their choices about opportunity distribution |
| **V**ault | Broken | Criticized your work to skip-level - shared information that should have stayed between you or been addressed directly |
| **I**ntegrity | Broken | Words ("I support your growth") don't match actions (giving opportunities to others) |
| **N**on-judgment | Unknown | Not enough evidence to assess |
| **G**enerosity | Unknown | Not enough evidence to assess |

---

### Primary Trust Fractures

The main trust issues are in:
1. **Integrity**: The mismatch between stated support and actual actions is the core issue. This isn't about one missed opportunity - it's a pattern where words and actions don't align.
2. **Vault**: Criticizing you to skip-level instead of addressing concerns directly broke confidentiality and showed they don't have your back when you're not in the room.

---

### Your Contribution Check

Before focusing on your manager, consider:
- **Your boundaries**: Have you been clear about your growth goals and the opportunities you want?
- **Your reliability**: Have you delivered on your commitments?
- **Your accountability**: Have you owned any gaps in your performance?
- **Your vault**: Have you kept their confidences?
- **Your integrity**: Have you been direct with them or complained to others?
- **Your non-judgment**: Do they feel safe giving you real feedback?
- **Your generosity**: Is there a charitable interpretation you're missing?

Honest assessment: Have you directly told them you want specific opportunities? Have you asked why others were chosen? The skip-level criticism is concerning, but there may be context you don't have.

---

### Trust Repair Actions

For **Integrity** (words vs actions):
- Specific action: Have a direct conversation about the pattern you're seeing
- Conversation starter: "I want to understand something. You've said you support my growth, and I believe you mean that. But I've noticed that when opportunities like [X, Y, Z] came up, they went to others. Help me understand what's happening."
- Success indicator: Their actions start matching their words, OR they're honest about what's really going on

For **Vault** (skip-level criticism):
- Specific action: Address this directly
- Conversation starter: "I heard that there were concerns about my work shared with [skip-level]. I'd rather hear feedback directly. Can we talk about what the concerns are?"
- Success indicator: They commit to direct feedback; you stop hearing about behind-the-scenes conversations

---

### Marble Jar Strategy

**Small moments to prioritize:**
- Notice if they follow through on small commitments
- Watch whether they give you feedback directly
- See if behavior changes after the conversation

**What to stop doing:**
- Stop assuming positive intent where evidence shows otherwise (generosity has limits)

---

### Reality Check

**Can this trust be rebuilt?**
Possibly, but it depends on whether the manager is willing to be honest about what's happening. The integrity gap is significant - if they continue to say one thing and do another, trust cannot be rebuilt regardless of your efforts.

**What if it can't?**
Document your contributions clearly. Build relationships with skip-level directly (appropriately). Consider whether this is the right manager for your growth. Trust your instincts - the BRAVING assessment confirms real issues, not paranoia.

---

## Integration

This skill is part of the **Brene Brown** expert persona. It pairs well with:
- **rumble-conversation** for the actual trust repair conversation
- **shame-resilience-check** when broken trust triggers shame
- **strategic-inflection-point-diagnosis** for deciding whether to stay or go