thinking-bounded-ratio…
Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.
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.
$ npx -y skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-five-whys-plus --agent claude-codeHow it fires
How this skill gets triggered: by you, by Claude, or both.
/thinking-five-whys-plusContext preview
The summary Claude sees to decide when to auto-load this skill.
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.
name: thinking-five-whys-plus description: 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. disable-model-invocation: true
Build an evidence-linked causal chain from a known proximate fault to an actionable systemic root, then prescribe a countermeasure that would have blocked it.
1. **State the localized problem.** Record the observable symptom, confirmed component/path, time window, scope, and impact. Stop if localization is missing. 2. **Chain why with evidence.** Make the prior answer the new effect; propose a cause; cite logs, code, config, metrics, or witnesses; name and rule out alternatives. Stop on speculation. 3. **Branch before descending.** Ask what else could produce the same effect; keep every evidenced independent pathway. Treat the retained branches as a causal set rather than forcing one root. 4. **Counterfactually test each pathway and the set.** For each candidate ask, "Would removing this cause block this pathway?" Then ask, "Would removing the retained set block the observed failure?" Retain independently sufficient branches whose removal blocks their own pathway; do not reject them merely because another branch could still cause the failure. 5. **Enforce stop criteria per branch.** Stop a branch only when its cause is evidenced, controllable, actionable, recurrence-preventing, non-blame (not merely "someone erred"), and counterfactual-positive for that pathway. If it hits human error, ask why the error was possible. 6. **Prescribe a countermeasure for every retained root.** Name the systemic fix, owner-capable action, and how recurrence will be checked. Prefer removing enabling conditions over only patching the proximate symptom. 7. **Stop when verified or blocked.** Halt when stop criteria pass and a countermeasure is specified, or when further steps lack evidence. Do not pad by habit.
Problem: <localized symptom + component>
Chain:
Why1: <cause> | Evidence: <...> | Ruled out: <...>
WhyN: ...
Causal set check: would removing all retained roots block the failure? yes/no
Roots:
- <systemic cause> | Pathway counterfactual: <...>
Countermeasure: <action that removes the enabling condition>
Verification: <how to confirm this pathway is blocked>28 portable Agent Skills for structured reasoning in Claude Code, GitHub Copilot, Codex, Cursor, and other compatible tools Claude Code Thinking Skills is a public catalog of Agent Skills.
Repo: tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.
Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.
Under genuine uncertainty with no reliable forecast, inventory means, cap downside at affordable loss, act for commitments, and let goals emerge from…
When a constraint is treated as fixed, separate physics from convention, keep only independently supported primitives, and rebuild the simplest solution that…
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…