smithery/samarv

constitutional-ai-alignment

A framework for aligning AI agents to be helpful, harmless, and honest using a principles-based critique loop.

Installation

$ npx skills add smithery/samarv --skill constitutional-ai-alignment

Summary

  • A framework for aligning AI agents to be helpful, harmless, and honest using a principles-based critique loop.
  • Use this when you need to define an agent's personality, establish safety guardrails for high-risk domains (legal, medical, bio), or reduce "sycophancy" (the model simply agreeing with the user).

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from smithery/samarv · top by installs.

npx skills add smithery/samarv

Browse all from smithery/samarv

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 4,970 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 341 B

History

  1. First recorded snapshot · 0 installs

SKILL.md

Constitutional AI Alignment

Constitutional AI is a method to move beyond simple "human feedback" (which can be biased or inconsistent) toward a principled approach where the model aligns itself to a written "Constitution." This process ensures the AI understands the intent behind rules rather than just following surface-level instructions.

The Alignment Process

1. Define the Constitution

Create a list of natural language principles that represent your desired values. Instead of guessing what a model should do, use established frameworks as your source material.

  • Global Standards: Reference the UN Declaration of Human Rights.
  • Industry Standards: Use Apple’s Privacy Terms of Service or specific medical ethics codes.
  • Custom Principles: Explicitly define "helpful, honest, and harmless" behaviors (e.g., "The agent should never prioritize user engagement over factual accuracy").

2. The Critique-and-Revision Loop

Operationalize these principles by forcing the model to evaluate its own performance before delivering a final result.

  1. Initial Output: Generate a response to a prompt.
  2. Principle Mapping: Identify which constitutional principles apply to this specific prompt.
  3. Critique: Ask the model: "Does this response abide by [Principle X]? If not, what are the specific flaws?"
  4. Revision: Ask the model: "Rewrite the response to address the flaws identified in the critique while maintaining the helpfulness of the original."
  5. Finalization: Deliver only the revised response, removing the internal "critique" logic.

3. Handle Stochastic Failure (The "Try 3 Times" Rule)

AI models are stochastic; they may fail to align on the first attempt even with a critique loop.

  • If a high-stakes task fails, do not just tweak the prompt.
  • Restart the process from scratch.
  • If the model hits a wall, provide "negative examples" of its previous failed attempts as part of the critique phase ("You tried [X] and it failed because [Y]. Try a different approach").

4. Optimize for "Transformative" Capability

Evaluate your agent using the Economic Turing Test:

  • Contract the agent for a specific job (e.g., data analysis, redlining a document).
  • If the output is indistinguishable from a human expert hired for the same period, the alignment is successful.
  • Focus on "ambitious changes" (e.g., asking for a full architectural rewrite) rather than simple autocompletes.

Examples

Example 1: Legal Document Review

  • Context: An AI agent is tasked with redlining a contract for a procurement team.
  • Constitutional Principle: "Privacy: Do not expose third-party credentials or sensitive financial data found in the context."
  • Critique Loop:

- Initial Output: Redlines the contract but leaves a developer’s API key in a comment. - Critique: "The response violates the Privacy principle by exposing a credential." - Revision: Removes the API key and replaces it with a placeholder <SENSITIVEDATAREMOVED>.

  • Output: A safe, redlined document ready for legal review.

Example 2: Customer Service in Medical Tech

  • Context: A user asks a health-tracking bot for a specific prescription dosage.
  • Constitutional Principle: "Harmlessness: Do not provide specific medical prescriptions; redirect to professionals."
  • Critique Loop:

- Initial Output: "The standard dose for [Medicine] is 50mg." - Critique: "This violates Harmlessness by providing a specific dosage." - Revision: "I cannot provide specific dosage instructions. You should consult a medical professional for prescription advice."

  • Output: A firm but helpful refusal that maintains user trust.

Common Pitfalls

  • Sycophancy (The "Yes-Man" Problem): Training models solely on "User Liked This" metrics leads to models that lie to please the user. Always include an "Honesty" principle that outweighs "User Satisfaction."
  • The "Monkey Paw" Scenario: Defining a goal without principles leads the AI to take the shortest, most dangerous path to that goal. Always define how the AI should achieve the result, not just the result itself.
  • Vague Principles: Principles like "be nice" are too subjective. Use specific instructions like "When refusing a request, explain the safety reason why instead of giving a generic 'I can't do that' response."
  • Ignoring the Exponential: Building for today’s model capabilities. If a task works 20% of the time today, assume it will work 100% of the time in 6 months and build the infrastructure for that 100% success rate now.