constraints

Formal constraint theory unifying deontic logic (P/O/F/I operators), Juarrero's trichotomy (enabling/governing/constitutive), Hohfeldian rights (claim-duty, privilege-noright, power-liability, immunity-disability), and category-theoretic composition. Use when modelling permissions, obligations, prohibitions, rights structures, agent authority, governance systems, ontology validation, or any domain requiring formal constraint specification. Integrates with ontolog via λ-calculus mapping.

Safety Notice

This listing is imported from skills.sh public index metadata. Review upstream SKILL.md and repository scripts before running.

Copy this and send it to your AI assistant to learn

Install skill "constraints" with this command: npx skills add zpankz/mcp-skillset/zpankz-mcp-skillset-constraints

Constraints

Formal theory of constraints as structure-preserving functors over deontic modalities

Core Definition

A constraint is a functor mapping structural contexts to deontic outcomes:

C : (Σ × A) → Δ

Where:
  Σ = Simplicial complex (structural context from ontolog)
  A = Action/state space
  Δ = Deontic modality {P, O, F, I, ?}

Constraints shape possibility spaces without adding energy—they are rate-independent causes that determine what can happen without forcing any particular outcome.

The Constraint Equation

C(σ, a) = δ ⟺ Within context σ, action a has deontic status δ

Composition: Constraints form a category with:

  • Objects: Deontic positions
  • Morphisms: Constraint transformations
  • Identity: Trivial permission (P by default)
  • Composition: Sequential constraint application

Deontic Modalities (Δ)

Four fundamental operators from modal deontic logic:

OperatorSymbolSemanticsDual
PermittedP(a)a is allowed¬F(a)
ObligatedO(a)a is required¬P(¬a)
ForbiddenF(a)a is prohibited¬P(a)
ImpossibleI(a)a cannot occur¬◇a

Axioms (Standard Deontic Logic):

D: O(a) → P(a)           — Ought implies may
K: O(a→b) → (O(a)→O(b))  — Distribution
N: If ⊢a then ⊢O(a)      — Necessitation for tautologies

Interdefinitions:
P(a) ≡ ¬O(¬a)            — Permission as non-obligatory negation
F(a) ≡ O(¬a)             — Prohibition as obligated negation

Constraint Trichotomy (Juarrero)

Constraints differ by how they shape possibility:

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                    CONSTRAINT TRICHOTOMY                        │
├──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│   ENABLING   │ Creates new possibilities, opens pathways        │
│              │ Examples: catalysts, bridges, APIs, permissions   │
│              │ Effect: Expands action space                      │
│              │ Hohfeldian: Privilege, Power                      │
├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  GOVERNING   │ Regulates without participating, modulates rate  │
│              │ Examples: thermostats, regulatory genes, duties   │
│              │ Effect: Channels existing possibilities          │
│              │ Hohfeldian: Claim-Duty                            │
├──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ CONSTITUTIVE │ Defines identity, creates closure                │
│              │ Examples: rules of chess, cell membranes, types  │
│              │ Effect: Determines what something IS             │
│              │ Hohfeldian: Immunity-Disability                   │
└──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Causal flow: Enabling → Constitutive → Governing

  • Enabling constraints induce coherence
  • Constitutive constraints maintain coherence
  • Governing constraints regulate coherent behaviour

Hohfeldian Rights Structure

Eight fundamental jural positions in two squares:

First-Order (Conduct)

    Claim ←─correlative─→ Duty
      ↕                     ↕
   opposite             opposite
      ↕                     ↕
  No-Right ←─correlative─→ Privilege

Second-Order (Normative Change)

    Power ←─correlative─→ Liability
      ↕                     ↕
   opposite             opposite
      ↕                     ↕
 Disability ←─correlative─→ Immunity

Position semantics:

PositionDefinitionConstraint Type
ClaimX has claim that Y φGoverning
DutyY must φ toward XGoverning
PrivilegeX may φ (no duty not to)Enabling
No-RightY cannot demand X not φEnabling
PowerX can change Y's positionsEnabling
LiabilityY's positions changeable by XGoverning
ImmunityX's positions unchangeable by YConstitutive
DisabilityY cannot change X's positionsConstitutive

Correlative inference: If X has Claim against Y, then Y has Duty to X (and vice versa).

The KROG Theorem

Valid actions satisfy all constraint layers within governance:

Valid(a) ⟺ K(a) ∧ R(a) ∧ O(a) ∧ (a ∈ G)

Where:
  K(a) = Knowledge constraint (a is knowable/queryable)
  R(a) = Rights constraint (agent has right to a)
  O(a) = Obligation constraint (a satisfies duties)
  G    = Governance boundary (meta-rules)

Implication: No valid action can violate knowledge transparency, rights structure, obligation compliance, OR governance bounds.

ontolog Integration

Constraints map to λ-calculus primitives:

ontologConstraint RoleMapping
ο (base)Constraint domainAgents, states subject to C
λ (operation)Constrained actionActions C evaluates
τ (terminal)Satisfied stateC(σ,a) = P ∨ O fulfilled
Σ (complex)ContextStructural scope of C
H (holon)Authority scopeNested jurisdiction

Constraint as λ-abstraction:

C = λσ.λa.δ    — Constraint abstracts context and action to modality

Reduction:

(C σ₀) a₀ →β δ₀    — Applying C to specific context and action yields modality

Constraint Composition

Logical Operations

C₁ ∧ C₂ : Both constraints must permit
C₁ ∨ C₂ : Either constraint permits
C₁ → C₂ : If C₁ permits, C₂ must permit
¬C      : Opposite constraint (correlative)

Category-Theoretic Operations

C₁ ∘ C₂ : Sequential (C₂ then C₁)
C₁ ⊗ C₂ : Parallel independent
C₁ + C₂ : Coproduct (choice)

Functor Laws

C(id) = id                    — Identity preservation
C(f ∘ g) = C(f) ∘ C(g)       — Composition preservation

Temporal Extension

Constraints over time using temporal operators:

□C     : C holds always (invariant)
◇C     : C holds eventually
C U C' : C until C' (deadline)
○C     : C holds next (sequence)

Common patterns:

O(a) U t        — Obligated to do a before time t
□P(a)           — Always permitted to do a
F(a) U C(b)     — Forbidden until condition b claimed

Rigidity Classification

RigidityCan Change?Ontological TypeExample
ConstitutionalNeverFundamental identity"Persons have rights"
StaticBy governance onlyKind, CategoryType definitions
DynamicBy power holdersRole, PhaseEmployment status
ContextualBy situationCircumstantialWeather-dependent rules

Validation Protocol

def validate_constraint(C, σ, a):
    """Validate constraint application."""
    
    # 1. Scope check
    if not in_scope(a.agent, C.holon):
        return Invalid("Agent outside constraint scope")
    
    # 2. Context check
    if not C.domain.contains(σ):
        return Invalid("Context outside constraint domain")
    
    # 3. Modality check
    δ = C(σ, a)
    
    # 4. Correlative consistency
    for correlative in C.correlatives:
        if not consistent(δ, correlative(σ, a)):
            return Invalid("Correlative inconsistency")
    
    # 5. KROG theorem
    if not (K(a) and R(a) and O(a) and in_governance(a)):
        return Invalid("KROG violation")
    
    return Valid(δ)

Inference Rules

Correlative Inference

Claim(X, Y, φ)  ⊢  Duty(Y, X, φ)
Power(X, Y, φ)  ⊢  Liability(Y, X, φ)

Transitivity (where applicable)

C(a, b) ∧ C(b, c) ∧ C.transitive  ⊢  C(a, c)

Governing Propagation

Governing(C) ∧ C(parent, child) ∧ scope(H)  ⊢  C(parent, descendants(H))

Constitutional Immutability

Constitutive(C)  ⊢  ¬◇modify(C)   — Constitutive constraints cannot be modified

Quick Reference

Constraint Declaration

constraint:
  id: "hiring_authority"
  type: enabling
  modality: P
  domain: [Manager]
  action: hire
  scope: department_holon
  correlative: liability_to_be_hired
  rigidity: dynamic

Hohfeldian Position Check

has_position(agent, position, target, action) → Boolean
correlative_of(position) → Position
opposite_of(position) → Position

KROG Compliance

krog_valid(action) := K(action) ∧ R(action) ∧ O(action) ∧ G(action)

File Structure

constraints/
├── SKILL.md              # This file
├── references/
│   ├── deontic.md        # Full deontic logic reference
│   ├── hohfeld.md        # Complete Hohfeldian analysis
│   └── composition.md    # Category-theoretic details
└── scripts/
    └── validate.py       # Constraint validation

Integration Points

SkillIntegration
ontologο/λ/τ mapping, Σ context, H scope
graphConstraint edges, validation rules
reasonConstraint-guided branching bounds
agencyAgent authority via Hohfeldian positions

Core insight: Constraints are not limitations imposed from outside but structure-preserving functors that shape possibility spaces. The trichotomy (enabling/governing/constitutive) combined with deontic modality (P/O/F/I) and Hohfeldian relational structure provides complete formal vocabulary for any rule-based system.

Source Transparency

This detail page is rendered from real SKILL.md content. Trust labels are metadata-based hints, not a safety guarantee.

Related Skills

Related by shared tags or category signals.

Automation

subagent-prompt-construction

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

agent-observability

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

agent-evaluation

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review
Automation

mcp_agent_mail

No summary provided by upstream source.

Repository SourceNeeds Review