/unknown

name: unknown
description: This skill should be used when the user provides a strategy, plan, or decision document and wants to surface hidden assumptions and blind spots using the Known/Unknown 4-quadrant framework. Trigger on "known unknown", "4분면 분석", "blind spots", "뭘 놓치고 있지", "뭘 모르는지 모르겠어", "전략 점검", "전략 분석", "assumption check", "가정 점검", "quadrant analysis", "what am I missing". Strategy-level blind spot analysis with hypothesis-driven questioning. For requirement clarification use vague; for content-vs-form reframing use metamedium.

Unknown: Surface Blind Spots with Known/Unknown Quadrants

Surface hidden assumptions and blind spots in any strategy, plan, or decision using the Known/Unknown quadrant framework and hypothesis-driven questioning.

When to Use

• Strategy or planning documents that need scrutiny
• Decisions with unclear direction or hidden assumptions
• Any situation where "what we don't know" matters more than "what we do know"

For specific requirement clarification (feature requests, bug reports), use the **vague** skill. For content-vs-form reframing (optimizing within a form vs inventing a new form), use the **metamedium** skill.

Core Principle: Hypothesis-as-Options

**ALWAYS use the AskUserQuestion tool** for every question in R1/R2/R3 — never ask questions in plain text. The structured format enforces hypothesis-as-options and limits choice fatigue.

Present hypotheses as options instead of open questions. The hypotheses ARE the analysis — by designing good options, 80% of the analytical work is done before the user even answers. The user's job is to confirm, correct, or surprise.

BAD:  "Why can't you do video content?"           ← open question, high load
GOOD: "Time / Skill gap / No guests / High bar"   ← pick one or more

• Each option IS a testable hypothesis about the user's situation
• Use multiSelect: true to catch compound causes
• "Other" is always available for out-of-frame answers

3-Round Depth Pattern

| Round | Purpose | Questions | Key trait | |-------|---------|-----------|-----------| | R1 | Validate draft quadrant | 3-4 | Broad, covers all quadrants | | R2 | Drill into weak spots | 2-3 | Targeted, follows R1 answers | | R3 | Nail execution details | 2-3 | Specific, optional |

**Critical**: Generate Round N questions from Round N-1 answers. Never use pre-prepared questions across rounds. Cap total at 7-10 questions.

Protocol

Phase 1: Intake

**File provided**: Read and extract goals, components, implicit assumptions, missing elements.

**Topic keyword only**: Start directly with R1 questions to establish scope. The draft in Phase 3 will be rougher but R1 corrects it.

Phase 2: Context

Gather related context to find Unknown Knowns — assets the user may not realize they have:

• **Glob** for related files: CLAUDE.md, README, decision records, past analyses in the project
• **Read** project context: recent goals, team structure, active initiatives
• **Identify** underutilized assets: existing tools/skills not in use, past projects with reusable patterns, team expertise not leveraged

Items discovered here become UK candidates and options in R1 questions.

Phase 3: Draft + R1 Questions

Generate an initial 4-quadrant classification. **The draft is intentionally rough** — R1 exists to correct it, not confirm it. Err on the side of classifying uncertain items as KU rather than KK.

Design R1 questions to test quadrant boundaries. **Batch all R1 questions into a single AskUserQuestion call** (max 4 questions):

| Target | Pattern | Example | |--------|---------|---------| | KK | "Is this really certain?" | "Primary revenue source?" (options) | | KU | "Where's the weakest link?" | "Which flywheel connection is weakest?" | | UK | "What exists but isn't used?" | Based on context findings | | UU | "What's the biggest fear?" | Risk scenarios as options |

Phase 4: Deepen + R2 Questions

Analyze R1 answers. Find the most uncertain area and drill in.

**R2 triggers**: compound answers (messy area), unexpected answers (draft wrong), "Other" selected (outside frame).

For detailed R2 question types, see `references/question-design.md`.

Phase 5: Execute + R3 Questions (Optional)

After priorities are set, nail down execution details for top items. Skip if R2 already provides enough detail.

Phase 6: Playbook Output

Generate a structured 4-quadrant playbook file. For the complete output template, see `references/playbook-template.md`.

**Output structure:**

# {Topic}: Known/Unknown Quadrant Analysis

## Current State Diagnosis
## Quadrant Matrix (ASCII with resource %)
## 1. Known Knowns: Systematize (60%)
## 2. Known Unknowns: Design Experiments (25%)
   - Each KU: Diagnosis → Experiment → Success Criteria → Deadline → Promotion Condition
## 3. Unknown Knowns: Leverage (10%)
## 4. Unknown Unknowns: Set Up Antennas (5%)
## Strategic Decision: What to Stop
## Execution Roadmap (week-by-week)
## Core Principles (3-5 decision criteria)

**Resource percentages (60/25/10/5) are defaults.** Adjust based on context — e.g., a startup exploring product-market fit may allocate 40% KU and 30% KK.

Anti-Patterns

• Open questions ("What would you like to do?") — use hypothesis options
• 5+ options per question — causes choice fatigue
• Ignoring R1 answers when designing R2 — performative questioning
• Equal depth on all quadrants — wastes time, loses focus
• No "stop doing" section — adding without subtracting

Example

**Input**: Growth strategy document

**R1**: Revenue source? → Workshops. Weakest link? → Biz→Knowledge. Blocker? → Skill gap + high bar (multiSelect). Biggest fear? → Execution scattered.

**R2** (driven by "execution scattered"): What to drop? → Product dev. Why no knowledge→content? → No process + no time + hard to abstract. Role clarity? → Unclear.

**R3**: Video format? → Screen recording. Retro blocker? → Don't know what to capture. What content resonated? → Raw discoveries.

*