AI Skill Report Card

Mapping Human Work to AI Execution

A-85·Sep 27, 2026·Source: Web
14 / 15

Given any human task/skill/workflow, produce a Task Decomposition Map:

TASK: [original human task in plain language]

1. DECOMPOSE → list atomic sub-tasks
2. CLASSIFY  → tag each sub-task: [AI-FULL | AI-ASSIST | HUMAN-GATE | HYBRID]
3. MAP       → assign inputs/outputs/artifacts per sub-task
4. GATE      → insert logic gates (deterministic checks) between steps
5. ACTUATE   → define where a human must confirm/approve/inject judgment
6. PACKAGE   → output as pipeline (prompt chain, script, workflow spec)

Example one-liner: "Turn my expertise in contract redlining into an AI pipeline" → Decompose into (extract clauses → classify risk → suggest edits → human sign-off) → map each to AI/human/gate.

Recommendation▾
Add a third example covering a more ambiguous/creative domain (e.g., strategic decision-making) to show range beyond process-heavy tasks
15 / 15

Progress:

  • Step 1: Elicit the source — get the human describe the task/skill/workflow in their own words, including edge cases and judgment calls
  • Step 2: Decompose into atomic units — break the whole into smallest meaningful actions (not too granular, not too coarse)
  • Step 3: Classify each unit by automatability
  • Step 4: Identify artifacts — what goes in, what comes out of each unit (data, documents, decisions, files)
  • Step 5: Design logic gates — deterministic checkpoints (rules, thresholds, validations) that decide branching/pass-fail
  • Step 6: Place human actuation points — where judgment, liability, or ambiguity requires a human
  • Step 7: Map resources — datasets, prior research, tools, templates needed at each node
  • Step 8: Package into executable form — prompt chain, agent workflow, script, or SOP
  • Step 9: Define success metrics — how "done" and "correct" are measured per node and overall
  • Step 10: Validate — dry-run against real example, tighten gates/thresholds

Step 2 detail: Decomposition heuristics

  • Split by input/output boundary: if output of A feeds directly into B, they're separate nodes
  • Split by decision type: pattern-matching (AI-FULL) vs. judgment/risk/ethics (HUMAN-GATE) vs. needs-verification (AI-ASSIST)
  • Split by repeatability: if it's done the same way every time, it's automatable; if it varies by context/relationship/politics, it's human

Step 3 detail: Classification tags

TagMeaningSignal
AI-FULLAI executes autonomouslyRule-based, pattern-based, high-volume, low-stakes
AI-ASSISTAI drafts, human editsCreative/ambiguous output, moderate stakes
HUMAN-GATEHuman must approve/decideLegal, ethical, relational, irreversible, high-stakes
HYBRIDAlternates per sub-conditionDepends on data quality, confidence score, exception rate

Step 5 detail: Logic gate design

Each gate = condition → action. Always deterministic, never vibes-based.

  • Confidence gate: if model_confidence < 0.8 → route to HUMAN-GATE
  • Validation gate: if output fails schema/rule check → reject & retry
  • Volume gate: if batch_size > N → require sampling review
  • Risk gate: if flagged_category in [legal, financial, safety] → force HUMAN-GATE
Recommendation▾
Include a failure-mode example showing a bad decomposition (too granular or misclassified gate) alongside the fix, to reinforce the good/bad contrast
17 / 20

Example 1: Input: "I manually review 200 resumes a week, screening for experience match, then write personalized rejection/interview emails." Output:

1. Parse resume → extract structured fields          [AI-FULL]
2. Score against role criteria                        [AI-FULL, gate: score >= threshold]
3. Borderline cases (score 60-75%)                     [HUMAN-GATE]
4. Draft interview/rejection email                     [AI-ASSIST]
5. Final send                                          [HUMAN-GATE: approve batch, or auto-send if AI-ASSIST accuracy >98% over pilot]
Artifacts: resume PDFs → structured JSON → scored table → draft emails → sent emails
Gate: score<40 auto-reject-email; 40-75 human review; >75 auto-interview-invite
Metric: false-reject rate, human review time saved

Example 2: Input: "I do freelance video editing — cutting raw footage down to highlight reels." Output:

1. Ingest raw footage, transcribe audio               [AI-FULL]
2. Detect scene/highlight candidates (motion, audio peaks, keyword hits)  [AI-FULL]
3. Rank/select top N clips                             [AI-ASSIST]
4. Human curates final clip order & pacing             [HUMAN-GATE]
5. Auto-generate rough cut with transitions            [AI-FULL]
6. Human final polish & color/audio pass                [HUMAN-GATE]
7. Export/deliver                                       [AI-FULL]
Gate: if highlight-detection confidence < 0.6 → flag clip for manual review
Metric: % of AI-selected clips kept by editor unmodified (proxy for automation maturity)
Recommendation▾
Provide a minimal output template/schema block that could be copy-pasted for the 'PACKAGE' step (e.g., YAML or JSON pipeline spec) rather than only prose-style examples
  • Start from the artifact, not the activity. Ask "what physical/digital thing gets produced at each step?" — easier to map than abstract "skills."
  • Push human-gates toward exceptions, not defaults. Default path should be AI-FULL/AI-ASSIST; humans handle the tail, not the bulk.
  • Make every gate a testable condition, not "use judgment." If you can't write it as an if/then, it's not a gate yet — it's still a human task.
  • Version the pipeline. As AI-ASSIST nodes prove reliable (tracked via metrics), promote them to AI-FULL with a gate for drift/anomaly detection.
  • Preserve provenance. Tag every artifact with which node produced it, so failures can be traced back to a specific sub-task.
  • Reuse existing datasets/templates as scaffolding before generating new ones — map first, generate only for gaps.
  • Automating the whole task in one shot instead of decomposing — produces a black box that can't be debugged or trusted.
  • Placing human-gates based on discomfort rather than actual stakes/irreversibility — wastes human time on low-risk steps.
  • Vague gates like "AI checks if it looks right" — not deterministic, will drift and fail silently.
  • Ignoring artifact format mismatches between steps (e.g., AI outputs prose where next step needs structured data) — always specify exact schema at each handoff.
  • Treating the first mapped pipeline as final — it's a draft; validate against real runs and tighten thresholds.
0
Grade A-AI Skill Framework
Scorecard
Criteria Breakdown
Quick Start
14/15
Workflow
15/15
Examples
17/20
Completeness
17/20
Format
15/15
Conciseness
13/15