跳到正文
cccskills
免费在 GitHub 公开

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

实测评分 未实测

查看安装方法

包含的文件(1)

  • SKILL.md2.9 KB

SKILL.md(原文)

安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。

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.

评价

还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。

评论

无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。

还没有评论。来写第一条吧。

提交后会立即公开。请勿填写邮箱、电话等个人信息。URL 最多 2 个。

0 / 1000 字

此表单受 reCAPTCHA 保护,适用 Google 的隐私权政策和服务条款。

同一仓库的技能

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

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026年8月8日 更新

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

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills16672026年8月8日 更新

查看 tjboudreaux 的全部技能

报告此技能的问题