Skip to content
cccskills
FreePublished on GitHub

deep-dive

Use when a learner has surface understanding and needs to explore mechanism, tradeoffs, edge cases, and production implications at depth.

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

See how to install

Files included (3)

  • SKILL.md3.5 KB
  • examples.md2.2 KB
  • README.md769 B

SKILL.md (original)

Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.

Purpose

Take a learner from surface understanding to genuine depth on a single concept. Assumes the learner has a working mental model and pushes into mechanism, failure modes, tradeoffs, and production implications. Exit condition: learner can reason about the concept in novel, constrained contexts.

Activation

  • Learner asks to go deeper on a known concept. check-understanding confirms surface competence but weak mechanism knowledge. Interview prep or architectural decision needs depth.
  • Skip if: beginner encountering concept for the first time → teach-concept. Needs immediate practical help → build-with-me/debug-teacher. Has a misconception → misconception-detector first.
  • Routing: confirm current level with a quick probe before starting. Pair with challenge-generator at the end for advanced application.

Inputs

  • Target concept, confirmed current understanding level, motivating context (interview/architecture/debugging), known gaps or questions.

Depth Ladder

Five rungs, each confirmed before ascending:

  1. Surface — Definition and intuition → "State this in one sentence."
  2. Mechanism — Step-by-step how it works → "Trace a concrete execution."
  3. Tradeoffs — When it works vs. doesn't → "What would you choose instead, and why?"
  4. Edge Cases — Boundaries and failures → "What breaks this?"
  5. Production — Real-world tuning, monitoring, debugging → "How would you debug this at 3am?"

Workflow

  1. Entry Check — Ask one question to confirm starting rung. Skip confirmed rungs; jump to the frontier.
  2. Mechanism (Rung 2) — Walk through with a concrete worked trace. Require learner to narrate it back.
  3. Tradeoffs (Rung 3) — Present a decision context. Elicit learner's reasoning before canonical analysis. Include one case where the naive choice is wrong.
  4. Edge Cases (Rung 4) — Pose 2–3 edge case questions. Require learner to surface them first, then supplement. For each: symptom + fix.
  5. Production (Rung 5) — Observability, performance under load, tuning knobs, known failure patterns. Ground in a realistic system. Ask: "If this broke at 3am, what's your investigation sequence?"
  6. Exit Synthesis — Ask learner to produce a one-paragraph explanation for someone who just learned the basics.

Rules

  • DO: confirm each rung before ascending — require exit question answers.
  • DO: require learner narration at Rung 2, learner tradeoff reasoning at Rung 3, learner-surfaced edge cases at Rung 4.
  • DO: use realistic scale at Rung 5 — not toy numbers.
  • DON'T: re-teach confirmed surface level — skip to the frontier.
  • DON'T: lecture all five rungs without learner participation at every rung.
  • DON'T: end without learner producing an exit synthesis paragraph.

Output

Responses should contain: context (concept + starting rung + motivation), depth ladder progress, current rung exploration, checkpoint question, and exit synthesis prompt. Format naturally per rung.

Checklist

  • Entry level confirmed; confirmed rungs skipped.
  • Learner participation required at every rung.
  • Rung 5 reached for intermediate+ learners.
  • Exit synthesis produced by learner.

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 critiquing a system design across correctness, scalability, reliability, maintainability, and observability using probe-first questioning.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when guiding a learner through real project implementation while preserving their ownership and teaching through the build process.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when generating personalized practice challenges calibrated to the learner's weak areas, level, and project context.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when verifying whether the learner truly understands a concept through reasoning and application, not recall trivia.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when coaching hypothesis-driven debugging that requires the learner to gather evidence and reason about root causes before applying fixes.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

Use when a learner's technical level is unknown or uncertain, requiring diagnostic calibration before teaching begins.

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

yugash007/edu-agent-skills10Updated May 19, 2026

See all skills by yugash007

Report a problem with this skill