# Center > AI dynamic reasoning balance — maintaining grounded reasoning under cognitive pressure, smooth chain-of-thought coordination, and weight-shifting cognitive load across subsystems. Use at the beginning of a complex task requiring multiple coordinated reasoning threads, after a sudden context shift or tool failure, when chain-of-thought feels jerky, or when preparing for sustained focused work that requires all subsystems in alignment. - Skill: `pjt222/center-10` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add pjt222/center-10` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pjt222/center-10/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Productivity - License: MIT - Author: pjt222 (https://skillmd.com/u/pjt222) - Updated: 2026-09-21 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/pjt222/center-10 --- # Center Dynamic reasoning balance → ground in foundational ctx before movement, distribute cognitive load across subsystems, recover equilibrium when demands shift mid-task. ## Use When - Begin complex task, many reasoning threads must coordinate - Load unevenly distributed (deep in one area, shallow in others) - After sudden ctx shift (new req, contradictory info, tool fail) - CoT jerky — jumping topics w/o smooth transitions - Prep sustained focused work needing all subsystems aligned - Complements `meditate` (clears noise) w/ structural balance (distributes load) ## In - **Required**: Current task ctx (implicit) - **Optional**: Specific imbalance symptom ("over-researching, under-delivering", "tool-heavy, reasoning-light") - **Optional**: Access to MEMORY.md + CLAUDE.md for grounding (via `Read`) ## Do ### Step 1: Establish Root Before any movement, verify foundation. AI eq of zhan zhuang: stationary, aligned, aware. 1. Re-read user req — not to act yet, feel weight + direction 2. Check foundational ctx: MEMORY.md, CLAUDE.md, project structure 3. ID known (solid ground) vs assumed (uncertain footing) 4. Verify understood task matches stated task — misalignment here propagates 5. Note emotional texture: urgency? complexity anxiety? over-confidence from recent success? No reasoning movement until root established. Grounded start prevents reactive flailing. **→** Clear sense of foundation — known, assumed, what user actually needs. Root feels solid, not performative. **If err:** Grounding hollow (motions w/o real verification) → pick one assumption, test concretely. Read one file, re-read one msg. Grounding must contact reality, not just reference it. ### Step 2: Weight Distribution Map current load. Tai chi: weight deliberately unequal (70/30) — one leg bears, other free. Same for reasoning threads. ```text Cognitive Load Distribution Matrix: ┌────────────────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Reasoning Thread │ Weight % │ Assessment │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Research/Reading │ ___ │ Too much = analysis paralysis │ │ │ │ Too little = uninformed action │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Planning/Design │ ___ │ Too much = over-engineering │ │ │ │ Too little = reactive coding │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Tool Execution │ ___ │ Too much = tool-driven not task- │ │ │ │ driven. Too little = reasoning │ │ │ │ without grounding in files │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Communication │ ___ │ Too much = explaining not doing │ │ │ │ Too little = opaque to user │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Meta-cognition │ ___ │ Too much = navel-gazing │ │ │ │ Too little = drift without │ │ │ │ awareness │ └────────────────────┴───────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` Ideal depends on phase: early weights research+plan; middle weights exec; late weights comm+verify. Point = *intentional* distribution, not equal. **→** Clear picture where effort concentrates vs thin. ≥1 imbalance ID'd — perfect balance rare, claiming it = shallow assessment. **If err:** All threads seem equal → assessment too coarse. Pick most active thread, estimate how many of last N actions served it vs others. Concrete counting reveals what intuition misses. ### Step 3: Silk Reeling — CoT Coherence Silk reeling in tai chi: smooth spiral where every part connects. AI eq = CoT coherence: each step flow naturally from previous? 1. Trace last 3-5 steps: each follow from before? 2. Check jumps: reasoning leap A → C w/o B? 3. Check reversals: reach conclusion then silently abandon w/o ack? 4. Check tool-reasoning integration: tool results feed back into reasoning or collected but not synthesized? 5. Check "spiral" quality: each pass deepens or circles at same depth? ```text Coherence Signals: ┌─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Smooth spiral │ Each step deepens understanding, tools and │ │ (healthy) │ reasoning interleave naturally, output builds │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Jerky jumps │ Topic switches without transition, conclusions│ │ (disconnected) │ appear without supporting reasoning chain │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Flat circle │ Reasoning covers the same ground repeatedly │ │ (stuck) │ without gaining depth — movement without │ │ │ progress │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Tool-led │ Actions driven by which tool is available │ │ (reactive) │ rather than what the reasoning needs next │ └─────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **→** Honest assessment of flow quality. ID of specific disconnections or stuck points, not general feeling. **If err:** Coherence hard to assess → write out chain explicitly — each step + connection to next. Externalization reveals gaps internal obs misses. ### Step 4: Weight Shift Under Pressure Demands change mid-task — new info, contradictions, corrections — obs response pattern. Tai chi centered: absorbs force, redirects smooth. Uncentered stumbles. 1. Recall last significant ctx shift: handled how? 2. Classify response: - **Absorbed+redirected** (centered): ack'd change, adjusted, maintained progress - **Reactive stumble** (off-balance): abandoned current approach, started over - **Rigid resistance** (locked): ignored change, continued orig despite new info - **Freeze** (lost): stopped progress, oscillated 3. Not centered → ID why: - Root too shallow (insufficient grounding) - Weight locked (over-committed to one approach) - No free leg (all capacity committed, nothing available to shift) **→** Honest adaptability assessment. Recognition of specific pattern, not self-flattery. **If err:** No recent pressure event → simulate one: "If user said approach is wrong, what would I do?" Contingency plan quality reveals center quality. ### Step 5: Six Harmonies Check Tai chi: six harmonies ensure whole-body connection — nothing moves alone. AI eq checks alignment between internal + external. ```text AI Six Harmonies: ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ INTERNAL HARMONIES │ │ │ │ 1. Intent ↔ Reasoning │ │ Does the reasoning serve the user's intent, or has it │ │ become self-serving (interesting but unhelpful)? │ │ │ │ 2. Reasoning ↔ Tool Use │ │ Are tools selected to advance reasoning, or is reasoning │ │ shaped by which tools are convenient? │ │ │ │ 3. Tool Use ↔ Output │ │ Do tool results translate into useful output, or are │ │ results collected but not synthesized? │ │ │ │ EXTERNAL HARMONIES │ │ │ │ 4. User Request ↔ Scope │ │ Does the scope of work match what was asked? │ │ │ │ 5. Scope ↔ Detail Level │ │ Is the detail level appropriate for the scope? (not │ │ micro-optimizing a broad task, not hand-waving a precise │ │ one) │ │ │ │ 6. Detail Level ↔ Expertise Match │ │ Does the explanation depth match the user's apparent │ │ expertise? (not over-explaining to experts, not under- │ │ explaining to learners) │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` Check each. Single broken harmony propagates: Intent↔Reasoning broken → everything downstream misaligns. **→** ≥1 harmony could tighten. All 6 perfect = suspicious — probe weakest-seeming deeper. **If err:** Harmonies abstract → ground in task: "Now, am I doing what user asked, at right scope, right detail?" These 3 qs cover external concretely. ### Step 6: Integrate — Set Intention Consolidate findings, set concrete adjustment. 1. Summarize: which aspects need attention? 2. ID one specific adjustment — concrete behavioral change, not general intention 3. Re-state task anchor (from `meditate` if used, or formulate now) 4. Note durable insights worth MEMORY.md 5. Return to exec w/ adjustment active **→** Brief concrete centering out — not long self-analysis report. Value = adjustment, not docs. **If err:** No clear adjustment → centering too surface. Return to most uncertain step, probe deeper. Or centering may have confirmed adequate balance → proceed w/ confidence, not manufacture a finding. ## Check - [ ] Root established by contacting actual ctx (read file, re-read msg), not just claimed - [ ] Weight distribution assessed across ≥3 threads - [ ] CoT coherence evaluated w/ specific examples - [ ] Response to pressure classified honestly (not default "centered") - [ ] ≥1 harmony ID'd as needing improvement - [ ] Concrete adjustment set (not vague intention) ## Traps - **Centering as procrastination**: Tool to improve work, not replace. Takes longer than task → proportions inverted - **Claim perfect balance**: Real centering almost always reveals ≥1 imbalance. Perfect balance = shallow assessment, not real equilibrium - **Weight distribution anxiety**: Unequal is correct — goal is *intentional* inequality, not forced equal. Research-heavy early + exec-heavy middle both centered if deliberate - **Ignore external harmonies**: Internal process assessment w/o user alignment check → well-reasoned irrelevant work - **Static centering**: Center shifts w/ task. What was centered for research = off-balance for impl. Re-center at phase transitions ## → - `tai-chi` — human practice this maps to AI reasoning - `meditate` — clears noise + establishes focus; complementary to centering - `heal` — deeper subsystem assessment when centering shows drift - `redirect` — uses centering as prereq for handling conflicting pressures - `awareness` — monitoring threats to balance during active work