← LeaderboardThe Skill Leaderboard

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.

Published by tjboudreaux ↗tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills

Try your first task

thinking-circle-of-competence

Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.

Use thinking-circle-of-competence to Assess the claim [specific claim] using available evidence. State whether it is grounded, partial, or ungrounded, cite the evidence, and answer, fetch more evidence, or abstain as appropriate. If the claim concerns this project, inspect the relevant source before reaching a conclusion.

Required inputs

  • [specific claim]

User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗

SKILL.md

name: thinking-circle-of-competencedescription: Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.disable-model-invocation: true

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.