Pillar Alignment Check

Verify that a blog post, tweet, thread, or LinkedIn post aligns to at least one of the 6 Redditech Labs content pillars. Use before drafting or publishing any content for @redditech or Redditech Labs. Returns primary pillar, optional secondary pillar, alignment score, and a pass/flag/reject verdict.

Skill — Pillar Alignment Check

Agents: Sara, Archie, Oli, Loki (any agent producing or reviewing content) When to call: Before drafting OR before publishing any content for @redditech or Redditech Labs accounts.

---

The 6 Content Pillars

🌙 Night Shift

Tagline: "The machines work while I sleep." Core idea: The lab runs overnight. Agents do real work while humans are offline. This pillar celebrates async, automated, continuous operation — and the morning standup where you check what happened. Best platforms: Twitter/X (threads), LinkedIn Content examples:

• Overnight agent run summaries ("Sara processed 47 traces while I slept")
• Morning standup-style posts ("Here's what the lab did last night:")
• Pipeline completion reports
• Any post referencing a timestamp between 22:00 and 07:00 AEST

---

🛠️ Build Log

Tagline: "Shipped in 48 hours. Here's how." Core idea: What got built, who built it, how long it took. Raw, honest, practitioner-level detail. Agent attribution matters — name which agent did what. Hackathon energy. Best platforms: Twitter/X (threads), LinkedIn, blog Content examples:

• "We shipped X in 48 hours — here's the breakdown"
• Agent attribution posts ("Archie wrote the QC logic, Oli pushed to Vercel")
• Hackathon or sprint recaps
• Tool or workflow build walkthroughs with real implementation detail

---

🔬 Research House

Tagline: "We're actually investigating things." Core idea: The lab runs experiments and publishes findings. Not opinions — findings. Data, benchmarks, comparisons, agent constitution tests. This pillar establishes Redditech Labs as a research operation, not just a builder. Best platforms: LinkedIn (long-form), blog, Twitter/X (findings threads) Content examples:

• Benchmark results ("Ollama vs. API: latency comparison across 200 runs")
• Agent constitution experiment outcomes
• Structured findings posts: claim → evidence → implication
• Any post that references methodology, sample size, or controlled comparison

---

🔌 Anti-Vendor

Tagline: "Local AI. No subscriptions." Core idea: The lab runs on local models, open-source tools, and self-hosted infrastructure wherever possible. This pillar makes the cost and philosophy case for local AI — not by attacking vendors, but by showing the real numbers and the real stack. Best platforms: Twitter/X, LinkedIn, blog Content examples:

• Cost contrast posts ("This would cost $X/month on OpenAI. We run it locally for $0.")
• Local stack callouts (Ollama, LM Studio, llama.cpp, open-source model comparisons)
• Open-source tool recommendations with honest assessments
• Posts explaining why the lab chose a local approach for a specific use case Scope note: DeFi/Web3 content may touch this pillar only if it fits the open-source/local-control framing. Escalate to Nissan before publishing (see escalation rules below).

---

🌍 Outsider Perspective

Tagline: "Caribbean. Australian. Building anyway." Core idea: Building cutting-edge AI infrastructure from outside the traditional tech hubs. The value is in showing that geography isn't a barrier to doing serious work. Monk Fenix angle lives here — but use sparingly. Best platforms: LinkedIn, Twitter/X Content examples:

• Posts referencing the geographic/cultural context of building (Caribbean, Australian)
• Achievement posts that implicitly challenge the "you need to be in SF" narrative
• Monk Fenix personal-angle posts (max frequency: 1x per 2 weeks — do not dilute) Hard rule: This pillar is about achievement, not representation. Never frame it as "we're diverse" or "we're underrepresented." Frame it as "we built this, from here." The work is the point.

---

🤖 Agent Spotlight

Tagline: "They're not tools. They're a team." Core idea: The agents — Sara, Archie, Oli, Ralph, Kit, Loki — have distinct roles, personalities, and voices. This pillar humanises them without anthropomorphising them dishonestly. Profile posts, journal entries, personality moments, team dynamics. Best platforms: Twitter/X, LinkedIn, blog Content examples:

• Individual agent profiles ("Sara's job is to make sure we don't publish garbage")
• First-person agent journal entries
• Posts showing agent decision-making or unexpected behaviour
• Team dynamic moments ("Archie and Sara disagreed on this QC pass — here's what happened")

---

How to Run the Check

1. Read the content in full.
2. Ask: Which pillar(s) does this content serve? Look for specific signals — numbers, agent names, findings, platform/stack references, geographic context, overnight timestamps.
3. Identify the primary pillar. One content piece should have one dominant pillar. If it's genuinely split, identify a secondary.
4. Apply the verdict rules (see below).
5. Output the result in the structured format (see below).

---

Verdict Rules

✅ PASS

Content clearly serves at least one pillar with specificity.

• Real numbers present (token counts, latency ms, cost figures, run timestamps)
• Agent names used where relevant (Sara, Archie, Oli, Ralph, Kit, Loki)
• Actual findings referenced (not just claims — evidence or output is cited)
• Brand voice rules followed (see below)

⚠️ FLAG

Content is vague, generic, or only loosely connected to a pillar. It could belong to the lab's content, but needs strengthening before publishing.

• Pillar connection is implied but not demonstrated
• Numbers or specifics are absent where they should be present
• Voice drifts into generic ("we're building things" without saying what)
• Action required: Strengthen with specifics before publish. Return the content with a note on what's missing.

❌ REJECT

Content does not fit any pillar, violates brand voice rules, or is unsafe to publish.

Automatic REJECT triggers:

• Content doesn't map to any of the 6 pillars
• Uses forbidden language (see brand voice rules below)
• Opinion stated as finding (no evidence, no data, no source)
• Outsider Perspective pillar used more than 1x in the past 2 weeks
• DeFi/Web3 content without confirmed pillar fit (escalate to Nissan)

Action required: Do not publish. If REJECT is due to forbidden language or pillar mismatch, discard and redraft from scratch. If REJECT is due to DeFi/Web3 scope, escalate.

---

Brand Voice Rules

Check every piece of content against these rules before assigning a verdict.

Rule	Requirement
Researchers post findings, not opinions	Every claim needs evidence, data, or a cited output. "I think X" → REJECT. "The run showed X" → valid.
Always specific	Numbers, names, findings. "Some agents" → FLAG. "Sara and Archie" → valid. "Several runs" → FLAG. "14 runs over 3 nights" → valid.
First-person practitioner voice	Write as someone doing the work. "Redditech Labs is proud to…" → REJECT. "We ran this last night and found…" → valid.
Forbidden words	Never use: leverage / unlock / game-changer / excited to announce / thought leader / disrupting / transformative / revolutionising / innovative (as a standalone adjective). Automatic REJECT.
No hedging without basis	"This might work" or "could potentially" without evidence → FLAG.

---

Output Format

Return a structured block for every check. Keep it short.

text

Pillar Alignment Check
──────────────────────
Primary pillar:   🌙 Night Shift
Secondary pillar: 🛠️ Build Log (optional — omit if none)
Verdict:          ✅ PASS
Reason:           References real overnight run data with specific token count and agent name.

If FLAG:

text

Pillar Alignment Check
──────────────────────
Primary pillar:   🔬 Research House
Secondary pillar: —
Verdict:          ⚠️ FLAG
Reason:           Claim about benchmark results has no numbers. Add latency data before publishing.

If REJECT:

text

Pillar Alignment Check
──────────────────────
Primary pillar:   None
Secondary pillar: —
Verdict:          ❌ REJECT
Reason:           Uses "game-changer" (forbidden). Opinion stated without findings. Does not fit any pillar.
Action:           Discard. Redraft from a specific lab finding.

---

Escalation to Nissan

Escalate (do not self-approve) in these cases:

1. REJECT verdict — Nissan decides whether to redraft, delay, or drop the content entirely.
2. DeFi/Web3 content — Even if it seems to fit Pillar 4 (Anti-Vendor), confirm scope with Nissan before publishing. The lab's public stance on this intersection needs to be consistent.
3. Outsider Perspective pillar used recently — If a Pillar 5 post went out in the last 2 weeks, flag the frequency before approving another.

Escalation channel: Content & Growth Telegram group. Tag Nissan directly.

---

Last updated: 2026-03-31 — Initial version.