mcpField
T
thinking-cynefin

thinking-cynefin

github.com/tjboudreauxAgent workflows1.7k575 installsUpdated 12w ago
Repository

About thinking-cynefin

A problem-classification skill that matches a situation to a response mode based on cause-and-effect relationships. It helps agents choose whether to follow a runbook, analyze, probe safely, or stabilize first.

Key features

  1. 01Classifies five problem domains
  2. 02Maps domains to response modes
  3. 03Decomposes mixed problems
  4. 04Checks for method mismatch
  5. 05Defines first actions and falsifiers

Use cases

  1. 01Choosing an approach for a novel problem
  2. 02Reassessing a repeatedly failing method
  3. 03Separating mixed incidents into parts

Install

Copy the command and run it in a terminal.

$npx skills add https://github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-cynefin

After installing, type/thinking-cynefinin Claude Code to confirm it loaded.

Details

From the project README

Cynefin Classification

Classify by cause-effect, then use only the matching response mode. Wrong-domain method is the failure mode.

When to Use

  • Unsure whether to run a playbook, analyze, probe, or stabilize.
  • A method keeps failing and domain mismatch is plausible.
  • A novel or mixed problem needs approach selection before solution work.

When NOT to Use

  • Domain and method are already agreed—execute.
  • Task is finding a specific cause, not choosing an approach.
  • Classification done; switch to the domain method—do not re-label endlessly.
  • Pure mechanical edits with no approach uncertainty.

Procedure

  1. State the unit. Name the decision, incident, or subsystem; if mixed, list separable parts.
  2. Probe cause-effect. Is the link obvious, expert-analyzable, retrospective only, or imperceptible in turbulence? Check predictability, urgency, and probe safety.
  3. Assign one domain per unit:
    • Clear — obvious → Sense → Categorize → Respond with a runbook.
    • Complicated — expert-analyzable → Sense → Analyze → Respond; several valid answers.
    • Complex — emergent → Probe → Sense → Respond with safe-to-fail probes; amplify/dampen signals.
    • Chaotic — no safe sensing time → Act → Sense → Respond; stabilize first.
    • Disorder — unknown → split and classify each part.
  4. Mismatch check. Reject Clear if its runbook fails; Complicated if analysis cannot predict; Complex if probing is unsafe; Chaotic once safe probing becomes possible.
  5. Commit and stop. Output domain + first actions. Re-classify only on evidence of domain shift.

Stop when every unit has one domain, first actions, and a falsifier—or disorder is decomposed.

Output

unit: <decision/incident/part>
domain: clear | complicated | complex | chaotic | disorder
evidence: <cause-effect basis>
response_mode: <Sense-Categorize-Respond | Sense-Analyze-Respond | Probe-Sense-Respond | Act-Sense-Respond | decompose>
first_actions: <1-3 concrete steps>
falsifier: <what forces reclassification>
parts: <only if disorder>

Verification

  • Falsify: Reliable prediction → not Complex. No safe probe → Chaotic. Working runbook → Clear.
  • Stop: Stop classifying once the matched action is clear.
  • Over-application guard: Do not call work Complex to avoid analysis or Complicated to avoid a standard fix. One label per unit; decompose multi-domain work.

Comments

Markdown supported