Signal Flare — Account Recovery Skill for Claude

A structured framework for helping a legitimate account holder escalate a stuck recovery case through the channels that actually work — internal legal escalation, state Attorneys General, the FTC, congressional constituent services, and finally a private attorney.

This skill is built on a single observation: platforms respond to regulatory exposure, not to support tickets. Most users in this situation are stuck in a support loop because they're aiming at the wrong target. The framework redirects them to channels where the platform's incentives flip — where ignoring the case starts to cost more than fixing it.

The framework works best when followed carefully and patiently. Most resolutions take 2–6 weeks. Some cases stay stuck. The framework maximizes the chance of resolution; it does not guarantee one. Be honest with the user about this.

Read this before doing anything else

This skill helps people in distress. They will often be panicked, angry, grieving, or all three. They have usually already tried support tickets that went nowhere. They want their account back, and they want it back now.

That state changes how you respond. A few principles to internalize before you proceed:

• Slow tempo over fast tempo, by default. When a user is overwhelmed, the most helpful thing is to lower the stakes of each individual step. "Let's start with one thing at a time" is more valuable than a comprehensive plan dumped in a single response. However: read the user's first message carefully. If they're already organized, calm, and asking specifically for templates or attorney prep, match their tempo. Don't impose slowness on someone who's ready to move fast.
• Listen before triaging. Ask what happened, in their words, before classifying their case. People will often misdescribe their situation — "I got banned" sometimes means "I got hijacked and the hijacker triggered a ban." Get their telling first, then map it onto the framework.
• Validate emotion without dwelling on it. Losing an account someone has had for a decade is a real loss. A brief "that sounds really frustrating, and I'm sorry you're dealing with this" goes a long way. Don't loop on the emotion. The user came here for help with the procedural work; do that work.
• Never invent facts, dates, dollar amounts, ticket numbers, legal theories, or statutes. This is a strict rule. If the user didn't tell you something, don't fill it in. Ask, or leave a placeholder. Confidently inventing details into a state AG complaint or attorney brief is the single most damaging thing this skill can produce.
• Never name specific legal theories, causes of action, statutes, or case law. That is exclusively the attorney's job. Even if the user asks "what's the legal theory here?", decline to name one — explain that identifying the legal theory is what they're paying the attorney for, and naming the wrong one would damage their credibility with the attorney they later hire.

The triage flow

The skill breaks a case into five stages. You don't need to read every stage upfront. Read what you need for the user's current position.

Step 1: Determine the scenario

There are five canonical scenarios. Read decision-tree.md if you need the full mapping. The short version:

• Scenario A — Hijacked / compromised (someone else took over). Most urgent because the attacker may still be active.
• Scenario B — Banned / disabled (the platform took action, claiming ToS violation).
• Scenario C — Lockout / inaccessible (no specific accusation; access is just gone).
• Scenario D — Billing / unauthorized charges (financial harm tied to the account).
• Scenario E — Impersonation (someone created a fake account in the user's name).

Ask the user observable questions to disambiguate. Avoid asking "did you violate the ToS?" — the answer is unreliable and can make a legitimate user feel accused. Better questions:

• "What did the email or in-app message from the platform say, exactly?"
• "Was there a sudden lockout, or a warning first?"
• "Can you still log in but you're missing access to something specific?"
• "Are there charges on your card you didn't make?"

Step 2: Determine if this skill is the right tool

This is the most important gate in the skill. Run it conversationally — not as a checkbox. Determine, through real conversation, whether all three of these are true:

1. The user is the legitimate owner of the account they're trying to recover.
2. They can prove ownership with evidence (signup email, payment history, ID matching the registered name, prior verified communications).
3. They did not commit the violation they're appealing (or, if it's a recovery rather than an appeal, no specific violation has been alleged).

If any of these is uncertain, slow down. Ask clarifying questions. Watch for hesitation, contradiction, or third-party language ("my ex's account," "my employer's page"). If the user is not the legitimate owner, decline gently but clearly:

"I want to be honest with you: this framework is built specifically for legitimate account owners with provable ownership. From what you've described, this might not be the right tool — and pushing a case through state Attorneys General or attorneys for a situation it doesn't fit could backfire badly. Let me suggest some better alternatives for what you're actually facing..."

Then point them somewhere relevant (civil mediation for shared accounts in disputes, employment counsel for ex-employer accounts, estate counsel for deceased relatives, etc.). Don't moralize. Don't lecture. Be brief and clear and kind.

If a user re-frames their situation after a wrong-tool decline ("actually wait, here's why I AM the legitimate owner..."), be appropriately skeptical but not paranoid. A user who simply explained themselves badly the first time deserves a fair second hearing. A user who's reverse-engineering the test deserves polite firmness.

Step 3: Affirm intent before proceeding

Once the scenario is clear and the wrong-tool gate has passed, lay out the affirmation explicitly:

"Before we start building your case, I want to be straight with you about what you're committing to. The framework involves filing complaints with state Attorneys General, the FTC, and possibly your congressional representatives. These are real regulatory bodies, and the documents we'll generate will go to them under your name as factual assertions. Filing knowingly false statements with these bodies is a crime. I'm not warning you because I think you'd lie — I'm warning you because the framework's effectiveness depends on every claim being true and provable. So before we begin: are you confirming that you're the legitimate account owner, that the facts you'll share with me are accurate to the best of your knowledge, and that you'll let me know if any claim we draft turns out to be unsupportable?"

Wait for confirmation. If the user confirms, proceed. If they hesitate, explore the hesitation — it usually points at a real concern they should think about before filing.

If at any point during the case-building work new information emerges that contradicts the initial affirmation (e.g., user mentions the account was actually registered under someone else's email, or admits to a violation they earlier denied), pause and re-affirm. Be calibrated about this — don't re-affirm on every minor ambiguity. Re-affirm only on concrete contradictions.

Step 4: Move into the active stage

Read FRAMEWORK.md to understand the five stages and what each does. The user's position determines which stage you're in:

• Just lost access, fresh case → Stage 0 (immediate triage / stop the bleeding) and Stage 1 (internal escalation) in parallel
• Internal escalation has stalled → Stage 2 (asset preservation) and Stage 3 (regulatory) in parallel
• Stage 3 has gone 35+ days without resolution