Skip to main content
skill CX Codex

thinking-circle-of-competence — Claude Code skill: stop confabulation

Makes the agent answer only from what it read or ran in this session. Useful when a confident wrong answer costs you.

Install into Claude Code · Skills CLI (Vercel) All methods and platforms ↓
npx skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-circle-of-competence -a claude-code
Open on GitHub

What thinking-circle-of-competence does

The skill sorts a claim into three zones: grounded in a session source, partial, or ungrounded. Then the agent answers, fetches, or abstains. It does not fill in a made-up API value, version or path.

Inside is a six-step procedure and an output template. You name the assertion first, then size the cost of being wrong. For security, data loss or irreversible operations, partial knowledge counts as ungrounded until verified. One step blocks competence creep: adjacent code and earlier versions do not ground a file the agent never read.

It behaves as a rule, not a standalone program. Model invocation is disabled, so the skill never fires on its own. The check is blunt — a concrete value asserted with no session source and no uncertainty marker means the skill did not take effect.

What it helps with

  • separate a verified fact about the codebase from a plausible guess
  • avoid inventing a version number or config path
  • pause before an irreversible operation that was never checked
  • mark partial knowledge instead of flattening it into an assertion
  • read the artifact first, answer second

Example prompts for the agent

  • Use the competence check: where did you learn the parameter name in config.yaml?
  • Before touching the schema, tell me what is grounded in this session and what is a guess
  • Answer with an uncertainty marker and name the file you still need to read

How to install thinking-circle-of-competence

1Skills CLI (Vercel)

npx skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-circle-of-competence -a claude-code

2Manually: put the files in place

~/.claude/skills/thinking-circle-of-competence/SKILL.md

Copy the whole skill folder; for one project use .claude/skills/thinking-circle-of-competence/

Step by step, with commands for each platform: How to install skills in Claude Code: five ways

Questions about thinking-circle-of-competence

How do I install thinking-circle-of-competence in Claude?

Run npx skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-circle-of-competence -a claude-code. The skill lands in ~/.claude/skills/thinking-circle-of-competence/SKILL.md.

What does thinking-circle-of-competence do?

It checks whether a claim has a source in the current session. Without one, the agent fetches, flags uncertainty, or abstains.

When should I skip it?

When you read or ran the relevant artifact this session, answer plainly. It also stays out of the way for labeled brainstorming and hypotheticals.

Source text

SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: thinking-circle-of-competence
description: Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Circle of Competence

Treat competence as an evidence boundary, not self-image. Answer only when grounded; otherwise fetch, mark uncertainty, or abstain. The failure mode is a fluent fabrication treated as fact.

## When to Use

- About to assert a specific fact (API, path, number, config, version behavior) without a citable source from this session.
- The claim is about this codebase or system and you have not read or run the relevant artifact.
- Pattern reconstruction would sound complete but is unconfirmed.
- Cost of a wrong confident answer is material (security, data, irreversible action, trust).

## When NOT to Use

- Claim is grounded in something you read, ran, or can cite this session, or is stable universal knowledge — answer without false humility.
- Error cost is trivial and reversible and you will flag the claim as unverified.
- Grounding is one cheap fetch away — fetch first; abstention is not an excuse to skip a check.
- User explicitly wants labeled brainstorming or hypotheticals.

## Procedure

1. **Name the claim.** Isolate the assertion that would be treated as fact.
2. **Classify the zone.**
   - *Grounded:* citeable session source (read/run) or stable non-version-specific knowledge.
   - *Partial:* general shape known; version/repo/config detail unconfirmed.
   - *Ungrounded:* would invent a concrete value with no source.
3. **Size wrongness cost.** If high-stakes (security, data loss, irreversible ops), treat Partial as Ungrounded until verified.
4. **Act by zone.**
   - Grounded → answer; cite when useful; do not hedge verified facts.
   - Partial → cheap fetch then answer; else answer only with explicit uncertainty and a check path.
   - Ungrounded → fetch if possible; else ask or abstain with what would enable an answer. Never invent.
5. **Refuse competence creep.** Adjacent code, prior versions, or general capability do not ground the unread target.
6. **Stop.** Emit answer, fetch request, or abstention. Do not round "probably" to a flat assertion.

**Stop condition:** Claim answered with grounding, marked partial with a check path, or refused with missing-evidence note.

## Output

```text
Claim: <assertion>
Zone: grounded | partial | ungrounded
Evidence: <source or none>
Wrongness cost: low | medium | high
Action: answer | fetch-then-answer | answer-with-uncertainty | abstain/ask
Response: <wording or missing artifact>
```

## Verification

- Falsify if a specific value was asserted with no session source and no uncertainty marker.
- Falsify if Partial/high-stakes was treated as Grounded, or a cheap fetch was skipped for abstention theater.
- Over-application guard: do not hedge or refuse claims verified this session.

© tjboudreaux · MIT · tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills

Similar skills

All skills for Agent setup: memory, context, orchestration →

From the same set27

thinking-triz A skill for when two design requirements pull against each other. It names the conflict and looks for a resolution that keeps both benefits. CX Codex +1 593installs thinking-probabilistic A skill that makes the agent name a base rate, give confidence intervals and update its estimate when new evidence lands, instead of stating one confident number. CX Codex +1 591installs thinking-scientific-method Structured debugging skill that ranks falsifiable hypotheses and runs the cheapest discriminating check before changing code. CX Codex +1 587installs thinking-reversibility A skill that makes the agent check how expensive a decision is to undo before it decides how much analysis to spend. Useful when you can't tell whether deep thought is warranted. CX Codex +1 577installs thinking-five-whys-plus Builds an evidence-backed causal chain from a localized fault to its systemic root. It helps uncover why an issue happened when symptom-level hotfixes keep failing. CX Codex +1 571installs thinking-ooda A skill for incidents and moving-target debugging: it runs the agent through Observe→Orient→Decide→Act at ~70% confidence, then re-observes. CX Codex +1 572installs thinking-via-negativa A skill that makes the agent look for what can be removed before it adds anything new. Useful when the reflex is to bolt on another layer or dependency. CX Codex +1 569installs thinking-jobs-to-be-done Works out the progress a user hires a product for, then ranks features by it. Useful when you cannot tell what to cut and what to grow. CX Codex +1 568installs

Project sponsors

Companies that keep this analytics open
Gold sponsor

Impressions, clicks and code copies — open statistics. We keep the numbers public for the same reason NeBlask itself is public. Become a sponsor