Pillar Alignment Check

Other

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.

Install

openclaw skills install pillar-alignment-check

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

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

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:

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:

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:

REJECT verdict — Nissan decides whether to redraft, delay, or drop the content entirely.
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.
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.