| name | relationships |
| description | Update interpersonal familiarity, trust, liking, obligation, conflict, and shared history. |
| script | scripts/update_relationships.py |
Relationships
Purpose
Maintain social continuity between agents. This skill turns repeated interaction into relationship state instead of treating every encounter as new.
Research basis: references/research_basis.md.
Internal Logic (One Sentence)
Read recent social interaction and prior relationship state, update bounded familiarity, trust, liking, obligation, conflict, respect, and optional opinion-influence weights, then write state/relationships.json and notable social events.
Use When
Use this skill after conversations, cooperation, conflict, promises, favors, gifts, avoidance, betrayal, or repeated co-presence.
Procedure
- Read
state/observation.txt, state/observation_ctx.json, state/relationships.json, state/memory.jsonl, state/emotion.json, and profile context if present.
- Identify people involved and what happened.
- Update familiarity, trust, liking, obligation, conflict, respect, and last interaction.
- Add or revise shared history tags.
- If agents exchanged opinions, update a lightweight influence weight: repeated trust and expertise increase weight; betrayal, conflict, or low credibility decrease it.
- Write relationship state. If the event is notable, append a social memory through the memory skill or directly to
state/social_events.jsonl.
If deterministic baseline is preferred, run scripts/update_relationships.py first, then optionally refine subtle social interpretation with LLM reasoning.
Write
Write state/relationships.json. Optionally append state/social_events.jsonl.
Output Schema
{
"people": {
"alice": {
"familiarity": 0.62,
"trust": 0.71,
"liking": 0.55,
"obligation": 0.2,
"conflict": 0.05,
"respect": 0.58,
"influence_weight": 0.34,
"last_interaction": "brief friendly chat at cafe",
"shared_history_tags": ["cafe", "work"]
}
}
}
Notes
Trust and conflict should change more slowly than momentary emotion. A single event can strongly affect a relationship only if it is high-stakes, public, repeated, or identity-relevant.
Consensus note: if multiple trusted people provide opinions about the same uncertain issue, later cognition or media_literacy can average those opinions using relationship influence weights. This follows DeGroot-style consensus as a simple social influence baseline, not as a claim that real groups always converge.