本文へ移動
cccskills
無料GitHub で公開

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.

インストール方法を見る

含まれるファイル(1)

  • SKILL.md2.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。

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.

レビュー

まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。

同じリポジトリのスキル

概要と使いどころ

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

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

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills1,6292026年8月8日 更新

tjboudreaux のスキルをすべて見る

このスキルの問題を報告する