Moderation

Moderation workflows, thresholds, and appeals. Use when handling UGC at scale.

Security Scan

The skill is an instruction-only moderation workflow guide and its requirements and instructions are coherent with that purpose.

Purpose & Capability

Name and description match the SKILL.md: the file contains procedural guidance for moderation workflows, thresholds, and appeals. There are no unexpected binaries, credentials, or platform integrations requested that would be inconsistent with an advisory workflow document.

Instruction Scope

Runtime instructions are purely procedural: asking clarifying questions, proposing staged workflows, checklists, and tips. The SKILL.md does not instruct the agent to read files, access environment variables, call external endpoints, or exfiltrate data — it stays within a design/advice scope.

Install Mechanism

No install spec and no code files are present. As an instruction-only skill, it does not download or install anything to disk, which minimizes execution risk.

Credentials

The skill declares no required environment variables, credentials, or config paths. This is proportionate for a guidance-only moderation workflow; nothing sensitive is requested.

Persistence & Privilege

always is false (default) and there is no indication the skill modifies other skills or system-wide settings. The skill is user-invocable and the platform-default ability for the model to invoke skills autonomously is not by itself a concern here.

Assessment

This skill is a text-only, procedural guide for designing and operating moderation workflows — it contains no code, installs, or credential requests, so it is internally consistent with its stated purpose. Before using it in a production context, consider: (1) this is advisory only — implementing enforcement will require platform integrations and credentials that the skill does not handle; (2) moderation decisions have legal, privacy, and bias implications, so validate any thresholds or automation plans with legal, privacy, and policy stakeholders; (3) if you later link this guidance to automation (APIs, worker pools, or infra), review what credentials and third-party packages those integrations require; and (4) monitor outputs for safety and correctness before rolling out at scale.

Structured guidance for content moderation (UGC policy, thresholds, appeals): confirm triggers, propose the stages below, and adapt if the user wants a lighter pass.

When to Offer This Workflow

Trigger conditions:

• User mentions content moderation or closely related work
• They want a structured workflow rather than ad-hoc tips
• They are preparing a review, rollout, or stakeholder communication

Initial offer: Explain the four stages briefly and ask whether to follow this workflow or work freeform. If they decline, continue in their preferred style.

Workflow Stages

Stage 1: Clarify context & goals

Anchor on categories and severity. Ask what success looks like, constraints, and what must not break. Capture unknowns early.

Stage 2: Design or plan the approach

Translate goals into a concrete plan around human review workflows. Compare alternatives and explicit trade-offs; avoid implicit assumptions.

Stage 3: Implement, validate, and harden

Execute with verification loops tied to threshold tuning. Prefer small steps, measurable checks, and rollback points where risk is high.

Stage 4: Operate, communicate, and iterate

Close the loop with appeals and transparency: monitoring, documentation, stakeholder updates, and lessons learned for the next cycle.

Checklist Before Completion

• Goals and constraints are explicit for moderation
• Risks and trade-offs are stated, not hand-waved
• Verification steps match the change’s impact (tests, canary, peer review)
• Operational follow-through is covered (monitoring, docs, owners)

Tips for Effective Guidance

• Be procedural: stage-by-stage, with clear exit criteria
• Ask for missing context (environment, scale, deadlines) before prescribing
• Prefer checklists and concrete examples over generic platitudes
• If the user declines the workflow, switch to freeform help without lecturing

Handling Deviations

• If the user wants to skip a stage: confirm and continue with what they need.
• If context is missing: ask targeted questions before strong recommendations.
• Prefer concrete examples, trade-offs, and verification steps over generic advice.

Quality Bar

• Each recommendation should be actionable (what to do next).
• Call out failure modes relevant to moderation (security, scale, UX, or ops).
• Keep tone direct and respectful of the user’s time.