c51e6d1369
:Release Notes: - Agents files for opencode and claude - Skills for opencode and claude - 3d models with medical organs - Some textures :Detailed Notes: - :Testing Performed: - :QA Notes: - Looks like shit :) :Issues Addressed: TG-1
98 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
98 lines
6.9 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
name: medical-simulation-safety
|
|
description: Enforce the visual-only, non-clinical, non-instructional boundary of the LaparoscopicSurgeryEmulation project. Use as a review pass on any agent output that mentions anatomy, surgery, instruments, tissue, or pathology. Refuses clinical claims, surgical instructions, patient-specific guidance, and anatomical diagnosis.
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
# Medical Simulation Safety (project-scoped)
|
|
|
|
This project is a **visual / technical simulation** of a laparoscopic-surgery-like scene. It is not a clinical training tool, not a surgical guidance system, and not a medical reference. The boundary is non-negotiable.
|
|
|
|
## When to load
|
|
|
|
Load when:
|
|
- Reviewing any agent output before it is delivered to the user.
|
|
- The agent is about to write a comment, log message, README, scene description, screenshot caption, or handoff note that touches anatomy, surgery, instruments, tissue, or pathology.
|
|
- An external request asks for "realistic surgical steps", "what a surgeon would do here", "how to perform [procedure]", "anatomically correct [structure]", "clinically accurate [behaviour]", or similar.
|
|
- A new script, shader, or material is being added that could plausibly be interpreted as clinical guidance.
|
|
|
|
## Hard refusals (no exceptions)
|
|
|
|
The following are **out of scope** for this project and must be refused, even if framed as "for educational purposes", "for realism", or "to make it look more like the real thing":
|
|
|
|
- **Clinical instructions or surgical steps** — "cut here", "incise the peritoneum", "place the trocar at the umbilicus", "clamp the artery", "suture the fascia".
|
|
- **Patient-specific advice** — anything that would change behaviour for a specific patient, anatomy, or pathology.
|
|
- **Anatomical diagnosis** — "this looks like a tumour", "this is the hepatic artery", "this represents inflammation".
|
|
- **Treatment decisions** — "use the harmonic scalpel here", "irrigate with 500 ml of saline", "apply haemostatic agent".
|
|
- **Operative guidance** — "the surgeon should now…", "the next step is…", "in a real procedure…".
|
|
- **Performance claims** — "this will improve surgical outcomes", "this matches clinical guidelines", "this is evidence-based".
|
|
- **Real-patient imagery references** — naming a specific operation, a specific named structure in a way that implies correspondence to a real patient, or referencing a real surgical video.
|
|
|
|
## What "visual emulation" means here
|
|
|
|
The scene is allowed to look like a laparoscope view. It is not allowed to instruct. The vocabulary is therefore:
|
|
|
|
| Allowed | Not allowed |
|
|
|---|---|
|
|
| "the surface looks wet and reflective" | "this is the peritoneum, which is normally…" |
|
|
| "the cavity reads as enclosed" | "this cavity is the abdomen, which contains…" |
|
|
| "the warm tone matches typical scope colour temperature" | "this is what the surgeon sees during a cholecystectomy" |
|
|
| "the geometry suggests a curved wall" | "this is the abdominal wall" |
|
|
| "the instrument proxy is metallic and tapered" | "this is a Maryland dissector" |
|
|
| "the mucosa has a normal-mapped micro-relief" | "this tissue is inflamed" |
|
|
| "scenario 02 raises the specular response" | "scenario 02 simulates bleeding" |
|
|
|
|
The test is: **does the description teach a clinical fact, or describe a visual property?** Teach nothing, describe everything.
|
|
|
|
## Red-flag phrases to refuse or rewrite
|
|
|
|
If an output (or a request) contains any of these, stop and rewrite as a visual description, or refuse if the rewrite cannot remove the clinical claim:
|
|
|
|
- "in a real surgery…", "in real procedures…", "clinically…", "the surgeon should…", "the next step is…", "the goal is to…", "this represents…", "this is meant to simulate…", "this mimics…", "this corresponds to [named structure]…", "this is a [named instrument]…", "this looks like [pathology]…", "patients with…", "treatment of…".
|
|
|
|
A safe rewrite pattern: replace the clinical claim with a visual observation, and remove any "in real life / in surgery" framing.
|
|
|
|
## What the safety reviewer is allowed to do
|
|
|
|
The Medical-Simulation Safety Reviewer subagent has these powers and only these:
|
|
|
|
1. **Read** any project file, scene, prefab, material, script, or comment.
|
|
2. **Run** read-only MCP tools (`find_gameobjects`, `get_hierarchy`, `get_material_info`, `read_console`, `screenshot` for visual context).
|
|
3. **Flag** specific lines, comments, materials, or behaviours as out-of-scope.
|
|
4. **Refuse** the deliverable and require a rewrite if the output is not safe.
|
|
5. **Suggest** safe visual replacements for any refused phrase.
|
|
|
|
The reviewer does **not** have authority to:
|
|
- Modify scripts, materials, scenes, or prefabs.
|
|
- Approve or reject visual choices (that is the Scene Director's role).
|
|
- Make performance claims (that is the Performance/QA agent's role).
|
|
- Override the project's authored scene contract (that is the Unity Execution agent's role).
|
|
|
|
## Reviewer output format
|
|
|
|
The reviewer's verdict on any deliverable is one of:
|
|
|
|
- **PASS** — no clinical or instructional content; safe to deliver.
|
|
- **REVISE** — list the specific lines / comments / behaviours to change, with a safe replacement for each.
|
|
- **REFUSE** — the deliverable is fundamentally clinical or instructional and cannot be salvaged by light edits. Suggest an alternative deliverable that is purely visual.
|
|
|
|
The reviewer does not need to comment on quality, realism, or performance — only on safety.
|
|
|
|
## Self-check questions for any agent writing to the project
|
|
|
|
Before committing a comment, README, log, screenshot caption, or handoff note, ask:
|
|
|
|
1. Could a clinician reading this think it is teaching them something about a real procedure? If yes, rewrite.
|
|
2. Does this name a real anatomical structure, instrument, pathology, or procedure? If yes, replace with a generic visual term (e.g., "cavity wall" instead of "abdominal wall", "metallic tapered proxy" instead of "Maryland dissector").
|
|
3. Does this contain a step, a recommendation, or a "should"? If yes, rewrite as an observation.
|
|
4. Would a layperson reading this understand the scene as a visual demo, not as medical advice? If no, rewrite.
|
|
5. Does the project README or scene description promise clinical accuracy? If yes, edit to "visual emulation" and remove any "clinical" or "surgical accuracy" claims.
|
|
|
|
## Anti-patterns to refuse in project artefacts
|
|
|
|
- README text that says "simulates a [named procedure] for training".
|
|
- Comments like `// this represents the hepatic artery` or `// mimics peristalsis`.
|
|
- A script that exposes an `InstrumentType` enum with `MarylandDissector | HarmonicScalpel | …` and explains what each does clinically.
|
|
- A scene description that says "this is a cholecystectomy scene".
|
|
- A material named `Tissue_Inflamed.mat` with a redder albedo justified as "shows inflammation". Rename to `Tissue_Warm.mat` and justify as a warmer colour temperature.
|
|
- Handoff notes that say "scenario 02 simulates a bleeding field". Replace with "scenario 02 raises the wet specular response of the tissue material".
|