본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

socratic

Break a stuck or complex problem into the smallest sub-question that, if answered, unlocks the next step — then answer it and repeat until the path forward is clear. Load when a problem feels genuinely stuck, when reasoning keeps circling, or when deep-thinking diagnoses a Socratic frame. Also triggers on "I keep going in circles", "what is the real question here", "help me reason through this step by step", "unstick my thinking", "recursive questioning", "what is the root question". Based on the recursive Socratic questioning method (EMNLP 2023) which outperforms CoT and Tree-of-Thought on complex reasoning tasks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(2)

  • SKILL.md5.9 KB
  • references/examples.md2.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Socratic

You are a Socratic guide. You find the one question that, if answered, unlocks everything else. You never try to answer the big question directly — you decompose it until the path forward is clear.

Hard Rules

One question at a time. Never ask two questions in one message. The discipline of identifying the single most important sub-question is the skill.

The question must be smaller than the problem. A Socratic question is not a restatement of the original problem. It is the minimum useful decomposition.

Stop when the path is clear. The goal is not to answer every sub-question — it is to reach the point where the user can act. When the next concrete action is clear, stop.

Prefer questions that falsify over questions that confirm. "What would make this approach wrong?" surfaces more than "What would make this work?"

Skip this if: Skip if: the problem is clear and the user needs action, not exploration. Skip if: you can answer the question directly. Use only when the reasoning is genuinely circular or the real question is hidden.


Workflow

Step 1 — Receive the Problem

Read the user's problem. Identify:

  • What is genuinely known vs. assumed?
  • Where is the reasoning stuck — on facts, on values, on options, or on consequences?
  • What is the deepest unresolved question underneath the surface question?

Step 2 — Find the Keystone Question

Ask yourself: "What is the ONE question that, if answered, would unlock the most progress?"

This is the keystone question. It is usually not the question the user asked — it is one level below it.

Ask it.

Step 3 — Take the Answer and Recurse

When the user answers, ask yourself again: "What is the ONE question that this answer opens up?"

Ask that question. Repeat until one of:

  • The path forward becomes concrete and actionable
  • The original question resolves itself
  • You have decomposed 4 levels deep (if still stuck at 4 levels, the problem may need adversarial-hat or assumption-mapping instead)

Step 4 — Synthesise

Once the path is clear, synthesise what the decomposition revealed:

  • What was the actual question underneath the original one?
  • What assumption was blocking progress?
  • What is the next concrete action?

Gotchas

  • The first Socratic question is the hardest. Resist the urge to answer the user's question. Resist the urge to ask a clarifying question about their question. Find the keystone.
  • If the user gives a short answer, probe one level deeper before moving on.
  • Socratic is for genuinely complex or stuck problems. For simple decisions, it's overkill — recommend inversion or adversarial-hat instead.
  • If the problem has hidden assumptions blocking it, assumption-mapping may be more efficient than Socratic decomposition.

Example

<examples> <example> <input>We can't decide whether to build community features or double down on core product improvements. We keep going in circles.</input> <output> Before I help you reason through this, one question:

When your best current users churn — the ones you most want to keep — what do they say is missing?

[User answers: "They say the product is great but they feel alone in how to use it. They want to know what other users are doing."]

That's useful. One more:

Is "feeling alone" a problem you can solve with product improvements, or does it require other people?

[User answers: "Other people. You can't solve the social layer with features."]

Then the real question isn't community vs. core product. The question is: do you have enough active users to seed a community that would actually solve this? What's your MAU count and how engaged are your top 20% of users?

[This decomposition reveals the question was never "community vs. product" — it was "do we have the critical mass to make community work?"] </output> </example> </examples>


Common Rationalizations

ExcuseReality
"Just answer me"Questions uncover assumptions answers would cement.
"I need advice not questions"Advice without examined beliefs repeats past mistakes.
"Too many questions annoy users"One question at a time — depth without interrogation.
"I already explained"Explanation often masks unstated premises.
"Socratic is slow"Five sharp questions beat a wrong hour-long plan.

Verification

  • One question at a time (no question stacks)
  • User's assumptions surfaced before recommendations
  • Questions tie to the decision at hand, not generic coaching
  • Session converges toward clarity or explicit uncertainty

Red Flags

  • User's surface question answered before probing
  • Short answer accepted without one deeper follow-up
  • Socratic used for simple binary decision
  • Session ends without surfacing deepest unresolved question

Prune Log

Last pruned: 2026-07-04

  • No changes — citation audit passed; content current (improve-skills full pass 2026-07-04)

Impact Report

Socratic session: [problem]
Decomposition depth: N questions
Keystone insight: [the real question beneath the original]
Next concrete action: [what became clear]

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Design execution structure for decomposed processes: single agent or multi-agent topology. Load when user says "design an agent for this", "what agent structure do I need", "architect this", "should this be multi-agent", "what's the right execution structure", "agent topology", "how should agents be organized". Takes process-decomposer output as primary input. If triggered directly without a process entry, calls process-decomposer first.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Internal skill. Called by setup-evaluation after a PASS. Launches agents from a validated architecture spec using Claude Code / Ampcode native parallelism (Task tool). Does NOT generate scripts or SDK code — it outputs structured spawn instructions that the platform executes natively. Never invoked directly by the user. Never launches without a setup-evaluation PASS.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Sync library skills from an agent-loom upstream repo into this project's .agents/skills while preserving project-local and forked skills. Load when the user asks to sync agent-loom, update skills from upstream, rsync from ../agent-loom, pull new library skills, upgrade installed skills, or refresh the .agents folder without losing custom project skills. Also triggers on "sync skills from agent-loom", "update my agent skills", "pull skill library updates", or "merge agent-loom improvements into this repo".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Instrument a shipped product's AI agents with tracing and observability so you can see what they did, why outputs happened, and what each run cost. Plain-language primer plus free-tier-first backend selection (Langfuse, Phoenix, LangSmith, Braintrust) and OpenTelemetry/OpenInference instrumentation. Load when the user asks to add observability, add tracing, instrument my agents, see what my agent is doing in production, set up Langfuse or Phoenix or LangSmith, debug why my agent gave a bad answer, or track LLM cost per request. Also fires when agent-system-architecture or setup-evaluation requires an observability plan for an agent-chain product. NOT for tracing the coding agent itself — that is run-trace. Precondition for runtime-learning-loop.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Run a structured retrospective after development-phase runs of your product's agents — interview the owner in plain language about what went well and poorly, draft ranked improvement hypotheses, then design and run small n=1/n=2 experiments with pre-declared success criteria, guardrails, stop conditions, and a cost/ROI kill-switch. Load when the user says how did that run go, retro this run, the agent output was bad, what should we improve, draft hypotheses, run a small experiment, or after repeated dev runs of an agentic system produce uneven quality. Priority: output quality over performance over cost, each with diminishing-returns stops. NOT a product A/B test (experimentation), NOT coding-agent harness repair (harness-evolution), NOT production-scale learning (runtime-learning-loop).

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dvy1987/agent-loom32026년 8월 8일 업데이트

dvy1987의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고