← LeaderboardThe Skill Leaderboard

thinking-cynefin

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

Published by tjboudreaux ↗tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills

Try your first task

Choose a response mode for an uncertain problem

Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.

Use the thinking-cynefin skill to classify this problem: [describe the decision, incident, or subsystem]. Based on the available cause-and-effect evidence, predictability, urgency, and probe safety, assign one domain—clear, complicated, complex, chaotic, or disorder. Return the matching response mode, one to three first actions, and a falsifier that would force reclassification. If the problem is mixed, decompose it into separate units first.

Required inputs

  • A description of the decision, incident, or subsystem
  • Observed cause-and-effect evidence
  • Urgency and whether small probes are safe

Suggested template by Skill Leaderboard, grounded in the linked source. Task evidence ↗

SKILL.md

name: thinking-cynefindescription: When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.disable-model-invocation: true

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.