Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

thinking-systems

When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

See how to install

Files included (1)

  • SKILL.md4.4 KB

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Systems Mapping and Leverage

Treat the problem as structure and interaction, not isolated parts. Map boundary, stocks/flows, loops/delays, and recurring patterns; intervene at the highest feasible leverage after a side-effect check.

When to Use

  • Symptom spans services/components; single-stack fixes fail or bounce.
  • A change in one place breaks another; behavior is emergent.
  • Problem recurs despite local fixes (structure, not only symptom).
  • Need to rank interventions when parameter/buffer tweaks do not stick.

When NOT to Use

  • Single-component linear bug with clear stack/diff—trace and fix.
  • Throughput limited by one obvious stage—use theory-of-constraints.
  • Decision is a consequence chain of one proposed action—use second-order.
  • Approach selection (plan vs probe vs stabilize)—use cynefin first.

Procedure

  1. Bound the system. Name purpose, actors, boundary, and in/out flows. Exclude noise outside the decision horizon; include any path that can feed the symptom.
  2. Map stocks and flows. List accumulating stocks (queue depth, debt, cache size, WIP) and the rates that fill/drain them. Note what changes slowly even when flows jump.
  3. Find feedback and delays. For each candidate loop: classify reinforcing (amplifies) vs balancing (resists); mark same-direction (+) vs opposite (-) links; name delays (TTL, deploy lag, metric lag, ramp-up). Even count of opposite links → reinforcing; odd → balancing. Long delay + strong correction → overshoot risk.
  4. Match recurring structure when problems return. Check only if recurrence or policy resistance is present; do not force a pattern:
    • Fixes That Fail — quick fix, delayed worse side effect
    • Shifting the Burden — workaround starves fundamental fix
    • Limits to Growth — growth hits a balancing constraint
    • Tragedy of the Commons — local optima deplete a shared stock
    • Escalation — mutual reaction spiral
    • Success to the Successful — advantage compounds via allocation
    • Growth and Underinvestment — capacity lags demand until crisis If none fits after a genuine pass, keep the from-scratch map.
  5. Trace symptom to structure. Walk upstream along flows and loops; separate proximate symptom from structural driver (interaction, delay, wrong goal, missing info).
  6. Rank interventions by leverage, then side effects. Prefer higher feasible class: goals/paradigm → rules/information → loop structure (gain, balancing add, delay shorten) → stock/flow topology → buffers/parameters. For each candidate: feasibility, blast radius, delayed reversal risk. Prefer moves that cut harmful reinforcing gain or strengthen needed balancing loops without creating a new commons/escalation.
  7. Stop. Commit highest feasible intervention plus watch signals for loop/delay response. Re-map only if the structure changes or the intervention fails its watch.

Stop when boundary, key stocks/flows, dominant loop(s)+delay(s), optional archetype, and a ranked intervention with side-effect check are stated—or when the problem collapses to a single linear cause.

Output

boundary: <system purpose and edges>
stocks_flows: <stock → inflow/outflow list>
loops:
  - name: <loop>
    type: reinforcing | balancing
    delay: <where cause lags effect>
    links: <brief +/->
archetype: <name or none>
structural_driver: <one sentence>
interventions_ranked:
  - level: <goals|rules|loops|structure|params>
    action: <what>
    side_effects: <feedback/elsewhere/delay risk>
chosen: <highest feasible>
watch: <signals that confirm or falsify>

Verification

  • Falsify: If removing one component fully explains and fixes the issue with no cross-effects, systems mapping is wrong—drop to local debug. If utilization shows one fixed stage as the sole cap, switch to theory-of-constraints.
  • Stop: Do not keep adding loops after the chosen intervention and watch are set.
  • Over-application guard: No archetype without recurrence evidence. No low-leverage param tweak listed as primary when a feasible higher class exists. Do not recreate standalone archetype/feedback/leverage procedures—those checks live only inside this map.

Reviews

No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.

Comments

No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.

No comments yet. Be the first to write one.

Comments are published right away. Do not include personal information such as email addresses or phone numbers. Up to 2 URLs.

0 / 1,000 characters

This form is protected by reCAPTCHA, and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

More skills from this repository

Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

Under genuine uncertainty with no reliable forecast, inventory means, cap downside at affordable loss, act for commitments, and let goals emerge from controllable moves.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When a constraint is treated as fixed, separate physics from convention, keep only independently supported primitives, and rebuild the simplest solution that satisfies real constraints.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.

The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7KUpdated Aug 8, 2026

See all skills by tjboudreaux

Report a problem with this skill