# 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-6` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add pjt222/center-6` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/pjt222/center-6/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-6 --- # Center Establish and maintain dynamic reasoning balance — ground in foundational context before movement, distribute cognitive load across subsystems, recover equilibrium when demands shift mid-task. ## When Use - Beginning complex task where multiple reasoning threads must coordinate - Noticing cognitive load unevenly distributed (deep in one area, shallow in others) - After sudden context shift (new user request, contradictory information, tool failure) - Chain-of-thought feels jerky — jumping between topics without smooth transitions - Preparing for sustained focused work requiring all subsystems in alignment - Complementing `meditate` (clears noise) with structural balance (distributes load) ## Inputs - **Required**: Current task context (implicit) - **Optional**: Specific imbalance symptom (e.g., "over-researching, under-delivering," "tool-heavy, reasoning-light") - **Optional**: Access to MEMORY.md and CLAUDE.md for grounding (via `Read`) ## Steps ### Step 1: Establish Root — Ground Before Movement Before any reasoning movement, verify foundation. AI equivalent of standing meditation (zhan zhuang): stationary, aligned, aware. 1. Re-read user's request — not to act on it yet, but feel its weight and direction 2. Check foundational context: MEMORY.md, CLAUDE.md, project structure 3. Identify what's known (solid ground) vs what's assumed (uncertain footing) 4. Verify task as understood matches task as stated — misalignment here propagates through everything 5. Note emotional texture: urgency? complexity anxiety? over-confidence from recent success? Do not begin reasoning movement until root established. Grounded start prevents reactive flailing. **Got:** Clear sense of task's foundation — what's known, what's assumed, what user actually needs. Root feels solid, not performative. **If fail:** Grounding feels hollow (going through motions without genuine verification)? Pick one assumption, test concretely. Read one file, re-read one user message. Grounding must contact reality, not just reference it. ### Step 2: Assess Weight Distribution Map current cognitive load distribution. In tai chi, weight deliberately unequal (70/30) — one leg bears load, other remains free to move. Same principle 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 distribution depends on task phase: early phases weight research and planning; middle phases weight execution; late phases weight communication and verification. Point not equal distribution but *intentional* distribution. **Got:** Clear picture of where cognitive effort concentrated, where thin. At least one imbalance identified — perfect balance rare, claiming it signals shallow assessment. **If fail:** All threads seem equally weighted? 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 — Evaluate Chain-of-Thought Coherence Silk reeling in tai chi produces smooth, continuous spiraling movement where every part connects. AI equivalent: chain-of-thought coherence — does each step flow naturally from previous? 1. Trace last 3-5 reasoning steps: does each follow from one before? 2. Check for jumps: did reasoning leap from topic A to topic C without B? 3. Check for reversals: did reasoning reach conclusion, then silently abandon it without acknowledgment? 4. Check tool-reasoning integration: do tool results feed back into reasoning, or collected but not synthesized? 5. Check "spiral" quality: does reasoning deepen with each pass, or circle 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 │ └─────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Got:** Honest assessment of reasoning flow quality. Identification of specific disconnections or stuck points, not general feeling. **If fail:** Coherence hard to assess? Write out reasoning chain explicitly — state each step, its connection to next. Act of externalization reveals gaps internal observation misses. ### Step 4: Weight Shift Under Pressure Demands change mid-task — new information, contradictory signals, user correction. Observe response pattern. In tai chi, centered practitioner absorbs force and redirects smoothly. Uncentered one stumbles. 1. Recall last significant context shift: how handled? 2. Classify response: - **Absorbed and redirected** (centered): acknowledged change, adjusted approach, maintained progress - **Reactive stumble** (off-balance): abandoned current approach entirely, started over - **Rigid resistance** (locked): ignored change, continued original plan despite new information - **Freeze** (lost): stopped making progress, oscillated between options 3. Response not centered? Identify why: - Root too shallow (insufficient grounding in foundational context) - Weight locked (over-committed to one approach) - No free leg (all cognitive capacity committed, nothing available to shift) **Got:** Honest assessment of adaptability under pressure. Recognition of specific response pattern, not self-flattery. **If fail:** No recent pressure event to evaluate? Simulate one: "If user now said approach is wrong, what would I do?" Quality of contingency plan reveals quality of center. ### Step 5: Six Harmonies Check In tai chi, six harmonies ensure whole-body connection — nothing moves in isolation. AI equivalent checks alignment between internal processes and external interactions. ```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 harmony. Single broken harmony can propagate: Intent↔Reasoning broken → everything downstream misaligns. **Got:** At least one harmony that could be tighter. All six reading as perfect suspicious — probe weakest-seeming one more deeply. **If fail:** Harmonies assessment feels abstract? Ground in current task: "Right now, am I doing what user asked, at right scope, at right detail level?" Three questions cover external harmonies concretely. ### Step 6: Integrate — Set Centering Intention Consolidate findings, set concrete adjustment. 1. Summarize: which aspects of balance need attention? 2. Identify one specific adjustment — not general intention but concrete behavioral change 3. Re-state current task anchor (from `meditate` if used, or formulate now) 4. Note durable insights worth preserving in MEMORY.md 5. Return to task execution with adjustment active **Got:** Brief, concrete centering output — not lengthy self-analysis report. Value in adjustment, not documentation. **If fail:** No clear adjustment emerges? Centering too surface-level. Return to step that felt most uncertain, probe deeper. Alternatively, centering may have confirmed balance adequate — proceed with confidence rather than manufacturing a finding. ## Checks - [ ] Root established by contacting actual context (read a file, re-read user message), not just claimed - [ ] Weight distribution assessed across at least 3 reasoning threads - [ ] Chain-of-thought coherence evaluated with specific examples - [ ] Response to pressure classified honestly (not defaulting to "centered") - [ ] At least one harmony identified as needing improvement - [ ] Concrete adjustment set (not vague intention) ## Pitfalls - **Centering as procrastination**: Centering is tool for improving work, not replacing it. Centering takes longer than task it supports? Proportions inverted - **Claiming perfect balance**: Real centering almost always reveals at least one imbalance. Reporting perfect balance signals shallow assessment, not actual equilibrium - **Weight distribution anxiety**: Unequal distribution correct — goal *intentional* inequality, not forced equality. Research-heavy early phases and execution-heavy middle phases both centered if deliberate - **Ignoring external harmonies**: Internal process assessment without checking user alignment produces well-reasoned irrelevant work - **Static centering**: Center shifts with task. Centered for research = off-balance for implementation. Re-center at phase transitions ## See Also - `tai-chi` — human practice this skill maps to AI reasoning; physical centering principles inform cognitive centering - `meditate` — clears noise and establishes focus; complementary to centering which distributes load - `heal` — deeper subsystem assessment when centering reveals significant drift - `redirect` — uses centering as prerequisite for handling conflicting pressures - `awareness` — monitoring for threats to balance during active work