Skills For Humanity

Surface internal contradictions, conflicting requirements, and edge cases that expose hidden conflicts in a document, spec, plan, design, or set of requirements. Use when something feels off but you can't pinpoint why, before committing to a design, or when requirements have grown incrementally and may have drifted out of sync. TRIGGERS: 'consistency check', 'find contradictions', 'does this spec make sense', 'check for conflicts', 'something feels wrong here', reviewing requirements docs, technical specs, architecture plans, product briefs, or any document where internal coherence matters.

Raises the quality of competent but flat prose by targeting abstraction, weak verbs, and sensory absence. Use when writing is error-free but doesn't sing — when it reads as competent but not compelling. Triggers: 'the writing is flat', 'prose elevation', 'competent but not compelling', 'lift this writing', 'the prose needs work but isn't broken', 'make this sing', 'the prose is fine but forgettable'.

Finds where an analogy breaks down before it's relied upon. Analogies fail silently — the damage happens when decisions are made on a mapping that doesn't hold in the relevant dimension. Triggers: 'stress-test this analogy', 'where does this comparison break', 'does this really apply', 'test the metaphor', 'where is the analogy wrong'.

Manages the limits of working memory — chunking, offloading, and reducing unnecessary complexity to free capacity for what matters. Use when asked 'this is too complex to hold in my head', 'I keep losing track of where I am', 'how do I make this simpler to think about', 'the design is overwhelming', 'people aren't retaining this', or when information architecture, learning design, or communication complexity needs to be optimised for working memory limits.

Identifies the entities with disproportionate structural importance — whose removal would collapse the system. Use when asked 'who is critical here', 'what holds this together', 'single points of failure', 'what if we lose X', 'irreplaceable actors', or 'structural dependencies'.

Maps what each stakeholder actually cares about underneath their stated position — because addressing the stated position while missing the real stake accomplishes nothing. TRIGGERS: 'what do they actually want', 'underlying stakes', 'what's really at stake', 'beneath the position', 'why won't they agree'.

Separates meaningful signal from background noise. Use when asked to 'find the signal', 'cut through the noise', 'what actually matters here', 'what's driving the variation', 'is this data telling us something real', or when a source is overwhelming and it's unclear what's relevant.

Map the full constraint landscape for a decision, design, or plan — distinguishing hard limits from soft preferences, surfacing hidden constraints, and finding conflicts between them. Use before committing to an approach, when a plan keeps hitting unexpected walls, or when it's unclear what's actually negotiable. TRIGGERS: 'map the constraints', 'what are we actually working with', 'what's blocking this', 'what can we change', 'constraint analysis', any situation where the boundaries of what's possible need to be understood before proceeding.

Identifies the current frame around a situation and generates alternative frames that reveal different truths. Use when asked to 'reframe this', 'the framing is wrong', 'change the narrative', 'different angle', or 'why won't they see it'.

Introduces a random, unrelated element to break mental fixation — forcing new associations that bypass the groove of familiar thinking. TRIGGERS: 'random stimulus', 'random word technique', 'break the fixation', 'I keep thinking of the same things', 'unstick this', 'force new associations'.

Deliberately designs the worst possible version — then reverses each failure mode into a design principle. Removes the pressure of being right and unlocks creative honesty that polite brainstorming suppresses. TRIGGERS: 'worst possible idea', 'how would you make this terrible', 'reverse brainstorm', 'design the failure', 'how would you deliberately fail'.

Separates meaningful signal from background noise — finding what actually matters among everything present. Triggers: 'what actually matters here', 'separate signal from noise', 'too much information', 'find the signal', 'what should I focus on', 'what's relevant'.

Maps who needs to be aligned, who already is, and how to build the coalition a proposal needs to succeed. Triggers: 'coalition building', 'who do I need to get on board', 'map the support', 'build alignment', 'who will support this', 'who will block this'.

Identifies group psychology shaping a discussion or team — groupthink, status dynamics, coalition formation, psychological safety. Triggers: 'group dynamics', 'why does this team behave like this', 'groupthink check', 'why won't people speak up', 'meeting dynamics', 'team dysfunction'.

Identifies all reinforcing (+) and balancing (−) feedback loops in a system. Use when asked to 'map the feedback loops', 'why does this keep happening', 'unintended consequences', or 'system keeps oscillating'.

Identifies what recurring cycle a situation is an instance of and where in that cycle you currently are. Use when asked 'what cycle is this', 'where are we in the cycle', 'have we seen this before', 'detect the pattern', 'hype cycle', or 'where in the curve'.

Explores possible, probable, and preferable futures using scenario thinking. Use when asked about 'scenario planning', 'futures thinking', 'possible futures', 'how might this play out', 'futures cone', or 'what could happen'.

Maps consequences of a decision across short, medium, and long time horizons. Use when asked about 'time horizons', 'what does this look like in 5 years', 'short-term vs long-term', 'map the implications over time', or 'think through the long-term'.

Assesses whether now is the right time to act, wait, or prepare. Use when asked 'is now the right time', 'should we wait', 'are we too early', 'timing this decision', 'when to move', or 'momentum'.

Tests whether the parts of something form a unified whole — finding the jarring inconsistencies that accumulate when different contributors work without a shared vision. TRIGGERS: 'coherence check', 'does this feel unified', 'something feels off', 'inconsistent', 'check the whole', 'does this hang together'.

Identifies the deep structural correspondence between two situations — genuine isomorphism vs superficial similarity. Triggers: 'does this analogy hold', 'map the structure', 'is this really like that', 'structural similarity', 'test the comparison'.

Flips a constraint into a creative driver — uses the limit as the generative force rather than working around it. Triggers: 'invert the constraint', 'use the limitation', 'constraint as feature', 'what if this limit was the requirement'.

Applies carrying capacity thinking to any system with limits — maps the ceiling, overshoot risk, and what happens when it is crossed. Use when asked about 'capacity limits', 'how much can this system handle', 'are we overloaded', 'growth ceiling', 'when do we hit the wall', or 'sustainable scale'.

Check whether an argument's premises actually support its conclusion, and identify logical fallacies. Use when reviewing a design decision, technical proposal, product argument, or any reasoning where the conclusion needs to hold up under scrutiny. TRIGGERS: 'validate this argument', 'does this logic hold', 'check my reasoning', 'is this a fallacy', 'find the flaw in this', any proposal or decision where the reasoning chain matters. Pairs well with logic-consistency-check when a full document needs scrutiny.

Finds or creates the tension that makes communication worth paying attention to. Use when asked 'this feels flat', 'no one's engaging', 'make this compelling', 'find the tension', 'what's the story here', or 'add stakes'.

Removes or inverts the main constraint to see what becomes possible — then uses those unconstrained solutions to find real ones. TRIGGERS: 'what if there were no constraints', 'rule inversion', 'what if we could do anything', 'break the rules', 'invert the assumption'.

Fully inhabits the opposing perspective — competitor, critic, user, or adversary — to find what is invisible from your own position. TRIGGERS: 'steelman the opposition', 'think like the competitor', 'play devil's advocate', 'see it from their side', 'role reversal', 'inhabit the other perspective'.

Finds the highest-leverage use of available resources — where the same input produces the most output. Triggers: 'resource leverage', 'highest-leverage use', 'where should we put our energy', 'maximize impact', 'leverage mapping'.

Maps the actual incentives driving behaviour — distinguishing stated motivations from the real incentive structures that shape what people do. Triggers: 'incentive analysis', 'why are they doing this', 'what are the actual incentives', 'follow the incentives', 'what does the system reward'.

Finds where small interventions produce large, lasting change using Donella Meadows' leverage point hierarchy. Use when asked 'where should we intervene', 'highest leverage', 'what actually changes this system', or 'find the lever'.

Produces executive summaries, 1-page briefs, and board-level documents by extracting the situation, key findings, implications, and recommendation — answer-first, one page maximum. Use when a lengthy document needs a senior-audience brief that enables a decision. Triggers: 'executive summary', 'summarise this for a senior audience', '1-page brief', 'TL;DR for leadership', 'distil this', 'board summary', 'write a brief'.

Extracts a voice fingerprint from strong existing passages and uses it to audit and repair voice departures. Use when multiple contributors have created a fractured document, when brand voice has drifted, or when the writing doesn't sound like one person. Triggers: 'the voice isn't consistent', 'voice consistency', 'this doesn't sound like us', 'multi-author document', 'maintain voice', 'brand voice', 'the writing sounds like different people'.

Tests whether a solution is more complex than it needs to be — distinguishing necessary complexity from accidental complexity that accreted over time. TRIGGERS: 'elegance test', 'is this too complex', 'over-engineered', 'is there a simpler way', 'does this feel right'.

Finds the minimum that satisfies the actual requirement — stripping everything wanted but not needed. Triggers: 'minimum viable', 'what's the minimum', 'strip this back', 'what do we actually need', 'scope reduction', 'simplify the requirement'.

Maps the true cost of a choice by making explicit what is foregone. Triggers: 'opportunity cost', 'what am I giving up', 'what else could I do with this', 'hidden cost', 'what's the real cost of this', 'what are we not doing by doing this', any decision where the cost of the chosen path needs to be compared against the best alternative.

Analyzes what would actually justify believing a claim. Maps the justification structure (foundationalist, coherentist, reliabilist) and identifies the weakest link in the chain. Use when you say 'what would it actually take to know this', 'is this belief actually justified', 'what's the foundation for this assumption', 'we keep citing the same evidence for everything', 'I believe this but I can't say why', 'what would change my mind', or when a claim feels supported but you want to make the support structure explicit and test it.

Identifies what recurring cycle the current situation is an instance of — and where in that cycle you currently are. TRIGGERS: 'what cycle is this', 'where are we in the cycle', 'is this a bubble', 'what comes next', 'have we been here before'.

Asks what a person or organisation of genuine integrity would do — grounding decisions in character rather than calculation. Triggers: 'character test', 'what would a person of integrity do', 'what does this say about us', 'gut check', 'would I be proud of this', 'are we being who we want to be'.

Tests whether a proposed decision is genuinely aligned with stated mission — or is rationalising a departure from it. Triggers: 'mission alignment', 'is this on mission', 'are we drifting', 'mission check', 'does this serve our purpose', 'on brand'.

Traces a claim back to its origin: who first made it, what evidence it rested on, and how it has been distorted in transmission. Use when you've heard something and want to know where it actually came from — 'where does this claim come from', 'who first said this', 'I've heard that X is true', 'trace the source', 'is this just a rumor', 'how did this become conventional wisdom'.

Tracks how meanings shift over time or across groups — concept creep, definition drift, and what it costs when words change. Use when you say 'this word doesn't mean what it used to', 'people are using this term differently now', 'this definition has been captured', 'concept creep', 'the word has been weaponised', 'we need to define our terms', or when a key term is contested or means different things to different audiences.

Diagnose what's maintaining an entrenched behavior and design the right intervention to shift it. Covers habits, routines, and behavioral defaults. Triggers: 'how do I change this behavior', 'why does this habit persist', 'how do I make this stick', 'behavior change', 'breaking a habit', 'building a habit', 'why can't I stop doing X', 'how do I get people to consistently do Y', 'implementation intentions', 'habit loop'.

Applies the 8 classic system archetypes (Senge) to diagnose recurring system behavior. Use when asked 'this keeps repeating', 'the fix made it worse', 'we've solved this before', 'identify the pattern', or 'system archetype'.

Diagnoses and repairs individual scenes using the want/obstacle/outcome framework. Every scene must change the story's state. Use when a scene feels flat, static, or purposeless. Triggers: 'this scene isn't working', 'scene construction', 'scene feels flat', 'scene review', 'fix this scene', 'the scene doesn't do anything', 'should I cut this scene'.

Identifies the underlying formal pattern at work — because most successful designs, arguments, and solutions share deep structural patterns, and naming the pattern unlocks the playbook. TRIGGERS: 'what pattern is this', 'pattern recognition', 'why does this work', 'identify the form', 'what structure is at play', 'what archetype is this'.

Audits a communication for places where the message will be lost, misread, or misunderstood — before it's sent. Triggers: 'clarity audit', 'will this be understood', 'check my message', 'edit for clarity', 'where will this be misread'.

Tests whether a stated constraint is real — distinguishing genuine limits from assumptions, habits, or politics dressed as facts. Triggers: 'is this really a constraint', 'challenge the assumption', 'who says we can't', 'is this actually fixed', 'test the constraint'.

Apply Edward de Bono's CAF (Consider All Factors) tool to map every relevant factor before making a decision or taking action. Use when the user is about to decide something important, wants to make sure they haven't missed anything, is planning an action and needs to think through consequences, or has been surprised by things they didn't anticipate. CAF is the pre-flight checklist for consequential decisions.

Apply Edward de Bono's lateral thinking to escape dominant patterns and generate genuinely new directions. Use when the user is stuck on a problem, wants alternatives to their current approach, says 'I keep thinking about this the same way', wants to think outside the box, or needs fresh angles on any challenge — creative, strategic, technical, or personal.

Runs a weighted multi-criteria analysis — making explicit what matters, how much, and how each option performs against it. Triggers: 'weighted decision matrix', 'multi-criteria analysis', 'help me choose between', 'compare these options', 'decision matrix'.

Imagines the decision has been made and failed — then diagnoses why. Breaks the commitment bias that prevents honest risk assessment after a direction is chosen. Triggers: 'pre-mortem', 'imagine this failed', 'what could go wrong', 'assume this doesn't work', 'failure mode analysis'.

Maps who benefits, who pays, and what behaviours the incentive structure actually produces. Triggers: 'what's the incentive here', 'why do people keep doing this', 'incentives are misaligned', 'who benefits from this', 'why isn't this working despite the policy', 'what does the structure reward', 'people say one thing but do another', any situation where behaviour diverges from stated intent.

Maps the solution space as peaks and valleys to understand local optima, adaptive valleys, and path dependence. Triggers: 'are we stuck', 'local maximum', 'fitness landscape', 'why can't we get to the next level', 'path dependence', 'trapped by success', 'incremental improvement is not working', 'we need a discontinuous leap', 'adjacent possible'.

Extracts recurring failure modes from similar past situations — most failures have happened before in recognisable patterns. TRIGGERS: 'what usually goes wrong', 'failure pattern analysis', 'how do these typically fail', 'what went wrong last time', 'avoid past mistakes'.

Verifies a claim across genuinely independent sources, distinguishing amplification from true corroboration. Use when you want to know if multiple sources actually confirm something — 'can I verify this from multiple angles', 'do independent sources agree', 'is this confirmed by more than one source', 'are these sources actually independent', 'how well-corroborated is this claim'.

Maps the audience's current beliefs, real goals, fears, and threshold conditions before communicating with them. Use when asked to 'model the audience', 'audience analysis', 'who am I talking to', 'what do they care about', or 'why aren't they getting it'.

Applies story architecture to any communication — proposal, presentation, strategy doc — so it moves people rather than informing them. Use when asked to 'structure this as a story', 'make this compelling', 'narrative arc', 'how do I present this', or 'story structure'.

Diagnose which cognitive biases are actively distorting thinking in a specific situation. Not a laundry list — a targeted diagnostic. Triggers: 'what biases are at play', 'are we thinking clearly', 'what am I missing', 'bias check', 'cognitive bias', 'am I being objective', 'are we rationalizing', 'what's distorting this decision'.

Identifies system-level properties that exist nowhere in any individual component. Use when asked about 'emergent behavior', 'components are fine but the system isn't', 'why does the whole behave like this', or 'what creates this property'.

Runs four systematic passes to identify timeline errors, character logic violations, world-rule breaks, and physical continuity errors. Use when a manuscript has contradictions, continuity problems, or logic violations. Triggers: 'there are contradictions', 'continuity errors', 'inconsistency check', 'the character shouldn't know that', 'timeline doesn't add up', 'continuity audit', 'inconsistencies in the manuscript'.