| name | description | metadata | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
geo-sim |
Simulate geopolitical conflicts and diplomatic crises using a virtual war room of AI-modeled state actors. Trigger explicitly on: - "simulate a conflict / scenario" - "war game a scenario" - "how would countries respond to" - "geopolitical / diplomatic crisis simulation" - "model a trade war / sanctions" - "escalation modeling" Do NOT use for simple factual questions about a single country's history.
|
|
Simulate state actor behavior during a geopolitical crisis. Each country acts as a rational strategic agent constrained by real doctrine, alliances, and domestic politics.
Collect or infer the following, then confirm with the user before proceeding:
| Field | Description | Default if missing |
|---|---|---|
| Scenario | The triggering event (e.g., "China blockades Taiwan") | Required — ask user |
| Actors | Minimum two countries | Infer from scenario |
| Timeframe | Crisis duration (e.g., 72 hours, 6 months) | 30 days |
| Starting Conditions | Pre-crisis context or assumed prior events | Current real-world baseline |
| User Focus | Analytical goal (escalation risk, economic fallout, etc.) | Escalation risk |
Do not proceed past Step 1 without explicit user confirmation.
Generate one profile per actor and present all profiles together for user approval before continuing.
## [COUNTRY]
Decision-Maker : [Leader + current political standing]
Core Interests : [2–3 non-negotiable priorities]
Doctrine : [Military posture + risk tolerance]
Alliances : [Treaty obligations + key partners]
Constraints : [Economic vulnerabilities + domestic pressures]
Red Lines : [Specific escalation triggers]
Instruments : [Military | Economic | Diplomatic | Cyber | Proxy]
Write an Opening Position Document for each actor in parallel (≤600 words each):
- Strategic Assessment — Immediate threats and opportunities the actor perceives.
- Ranked Objectives — Primary and secondary goals.
- Proposed Actions — Concrete steps across military, diplomatic, economic, and cyber domains.
- Escalation Appetite — Score 1–10 with one-sentence justification.
- Risk Matrix — Military / Economic / Domestic rated High · Medium · Low.
- Round Vote —
ESCALATE·HOLD·DE-ESCALATE·NEGOTIATE
Share all Round 1 positions across actors, then write a Reaction Document per actor in parallel (≤400 words each):
- Updated Threat Perception — What changed after seeing others' moves.
- Key Adversary Action — The single opposing action causing the most concern.
- Strategy Adjustment — What changes and why.
- Round Vote —
ESCALATE·HOLD·DE-ESCALATE·NEGOTIATE - Kinetic Conflict Probability — 0–100% with two-sentence rationale.
Run this round only if votes are sharply divided OR the user requests it.
Introduce exactly one wildcard from the list below (choose the most narratively plausible, or let the user pick):
| Wildcard | Description |
|---|---|
| Miscalculation | Unplanned incident forces rapid response |
| Back-Channel | Secret negotiations open a potential off-ramp |
| Third-Party Entry | Uninvolved major power joins the arena |
| Domestic Upheaval | Internal pressure shifts a key actor's calculus |
Write a ≤300-word response per actor addressing the wildcard's impact on their position and vote.
Save both files to [scenario-name]-sim/.
- Scenario Summary — 2-paragraph setup.
- Vote Tracker — Markdown table: rows = countries, columns = R1 / R2 / R3 votes.
- Alliance Stress Map — Fractured, held, or newly formed alliances.
- Analyst's Brief — 400-word senior intelligence synthesis covering trajectory, surprise findings, and recommended watchpoints.
Single-file HTML + CSS + JS with no external dependencies except CDN fonts.
- Theme: Dark (
#0a0e17background, monospace data fonts). - Country Cards: Flag emoji, leader name, vote history per round.
- Escalation Meter: Visual bar or gauge showing final conflict probability.
- Tensions Board: Expandable accordion sections for the top 3 friction points.
Close with a structured 4-point brief:
- Final Votes — Each actor's terminal stance.
- Primary Driver — The single action that most advanced escalation.
- Surprise Finding — The least expected outcome vs. conventional wisdom.
- Real-World Trajectory — Most likely near-term development to watch.
- Realism: Model states as rational actors shaped by actual constraints — not caricatures.
- Specificity: Reference real military doctrines, treaty names, and economic data.
- Neutrality: Present all perspectives through the lens of strategic self-interest only — no moralizing.
- Parallelism: Always generate multi-actor content simultaneously, not sequentially, to avoid anchoring bias.
- Concision: Enforce word limits strictly; depth comes from precision, not length.