본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

thinking-circle-of-competence

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

실행 점수 미검증

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(1)

  • SKILL.md2.9 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

Circle of Competence

Treat competence as an evidence boundary, not self-image. Answer only when grounded; otherwise fetch, mark uncertainty, or abstain. The failure mode is a fluent fabrication treated as fact.

When to Use

  • About to assert a specific fact (API, path, number, config, version behavior) without a citable source from this session.
  • The claim is about this codebase or system and you have not read or run the relevant artifact.
  • Pattern reconstruction would sound complete but is unconfirmed.
  • Cost of a wrong confident answer is material (security, data, irreversible action, trust).

When NOT to Use

  • Claim is grounded in something you read, ran, or can cite this session, or is stable universal knowledge — answer without false humility.
  • Error cost is trivial and reversible and you will flag the claim as unverified.
  • Grounding is one cheap fetch away — fetch first; abstention is not an excuse to skip a check.
  • User explicitly wants labeled brainstorming or hypotheticals.

Procedure

  1. Name the claim. Isolate the assertion that would be treated as fact.
  2. Classify the zone.
    • Grounded: citeable session source (read/run) or stable non-version-specific knowledge.
    • Partial: general shape known; version/repo/config detail unconfirmed.
    • Ungrounded: would invent a concrete value with no source.
  3. Size wrongness cost. If high-stakes (security, data loss, irreversible ops), treat Partial as Ungrounded until verified.
  4. Act by zone.
    • Grounded → answer; cite when useful; do not hedge verified facts.
    • Partial → cheap fetch then answer; else answer only with explicit uncertainty and a check path.
    • Ungrounded → fetch if possible; else ask or abstain with what would enable an answer. Never invent.
  5. Refuse competence creep. Adjacent code, prior versions, or general capability do not ground the unread target.
  6. Stop. Emit answer, fetch request, or abstention. Do not round "probably" to a flat assertion.

Stop condition: Claim answered with grounding, marked partial with a check path, or refused with missing-evidence note.

Output

Claim: <assertion>
Zone: grounded | partial | ungrounded
Evidence: <source or none>
Wrongness cost: low | medium | high
Action: answer | fetch-then-answer | answer-with-uncertainty | abstain/ask
Response: <wording or missing artifact>

Verification

  • Falsify if a specific value was asserted with no session source and no uncertainty marker.
  • Falsify if Partial/high-stakes was treated as Grounded, or a cheap fetch was skipped for abstention theater.
  • Over-application guard: do not hedge or refuse claims verified this session.

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

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

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

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1.7천2026년 8월 8일 업데이트

tjboudreaux의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고