Skip to main content
skill CX Codex

thinking-cynefin — Claude Code skill: pick the right approach

Sorts a problem into a Cynefin domain by cause and effect, then names the response mode: runbook, analysis, probe or stabilize. Useful when a method keeps failing.

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

What thinking-cynefin does

The skill takes one unit of work — a decision, an incident, a subsystem — and assigns it a domain: Clear, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic or Disorder. Each domain maps to a response mode. Obvious work gets a runbook, expert-analyzable work gets analysis, emergent work gets safe-to-fail probes, and chaos gets stabilized first. Mixed problems are split and classified part by part.

Mismatch checks are part of the procedure. A failed runbook rules out Clear. Analysis that cannot predict rules out Complicated. Probing that is not safe rules out Complex. The output is a domain, a response mode, one to three first actions, and a falsifier that forces reclassification.

It is not for mechanical edits or for finding a specific cause. The skill picks an approach, then hands off to the domain method. One guard is explicit: calling work Complex to dodge analysis is a known way to fool yourself, and the skill calls that out.

What it helps with

  • choose between a runbook, analysis and probing when none is obviously right
  • split a mixed problem into parts and classify each one
  • work out why a method that used to work stopped working
  • decide when to stabilize a chaotic incident instead of hunting the cause
  • write down what evidence would force a reclassification

Example prompts for the agent

  • Classify this with Cynefin: prod broke after deploy — runbook or stabilize first?
  • Run thinking-cynefin on this task and give me the domain and first actions
  • This approach failed three times — check whether the domain is wrong and suggest another mode

How to install thinking-cynefin

1Skills CLI (Vercel)

npx skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-cynefin -a claude-code

2Manually: put the files in place

~/.claude/skills/thinking-cynefin/SKILL.md

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

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

Questions about thinking-cynefin

How do I install thinking-cynefin in Claude?

Run npx skills add tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills --skill thinking-cynefin -a claude-code. The skill lands at ~/.claude/skills/thinking-cynefin/SKILL.md.

What does thinking-cynefin do?

It assigns a problem to a Cynefin domain based on cause and effect, then returns the matching response mode: runbook, analysis, probe or stabilize. It also lists first actions and a falsifier.

How is it different from ordinary root-cause work?

It selects an approach rather than finding a specific cause. If the domain and method are already agreed, the skill tells you to just execute.

Source text

SKILL.md · MIT
---
name: thinking-cynefin
description: When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Cynefin Classification

Classify by cause-effect, then use only the matching response mode. Wrong-domain method is the failure mode.

## When to Use

- Unsure whether to run a playbook, analyze, probe, or stabilize.
- A method keeps failing and domain mismatch is plausible.
- A novel or mixed problem needs approach selection before solution work.

## When NOT to Use

- Domain and method are already agreed—execute.
- Task is finding a specific cause, not choosing an approach.
- Classification done; switch to the domain method—do not re-label endlessly.
- Pure mechanical edits with no approach uncertainty.

## Procedure

1. **State the unit.** Name the decision, incident, or subsystem; if mixed, list separable parts.
2. **Probe cause-effect.** Is the link obvious, expert-analyzable, retrospective only, or imperceptible in turbulence? Check predictability, urgency, and probe safety.
3. **Assign one domain per unit:**
   - **Clear** — obvious → Sense → Categorize → Respond with a runbook.
   - **Complicated** — expert-analyzable → Sense → Analyze → Respond; several valid answers.
   - **Complex** — emergent → Probe → Sense → Respond with safe-to-fail probes; amplify/dampen signals.
   - **Chaotic** — no safe sensing time → Act → Sense → Respond; stabilize first.
   - **Disorder** — unknown → split and classify each part.
4. **Mismatch check.** Reject Clear if its runbook fails; Complicated if analysis cannot predict; Complex if probing is unsafe; Chaotic once safe probing becomes possible.
5. **Commit and stop.** Output domain + first actions. Re-classify only on evidence of domain shift.

**Stop when** every unit has one domain, first actions, and a falsifier—or disorder is decomposed.

## Output

```text
unit: <decision/incident/part>
domain: clear | complicated | complex | chaotic | disorder
evidence: <cause-effect basis>
response_mode: <Sense-Categorize-Respond | Sense-Analyze-Respond | Probe-Sense-Respond | Act-Sense-Respond | decompose>
first_actions: <1-3 concrete steps>
falsifier: <what forces reclassification>
parts: <only if disorder>
```

## Verification

- **Falsify:** Reliable prediction → not Complex. No safe probe → Chaotic. Working runbook → Clear.
- **Stop:** Stop classifying once the matched action is clear.
- **Over-application guard:** Do not call work Complex to avoid analysis or Complicated to avoid a standard fix. One label per unit; decompose multi-domain work.

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

Similar skills

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

From the same set28

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 thinking-bounded-rationality A skill that halts a search at the first option clearing a threshold you set beforehand, instead of comparing forever. CX Codex +1 563installs thinking-model-combination A skill that sequences 2–3 mental models with named roles when one model leaves a blind spot. Built for multi-domain decisions. CX Codex +1 563installs thinking-thought-experiment A skill for when a real test is too rare, large or irreversible: the agent runs one counterfactual with an isolated variable and bounds what the result implies. CX Codex +1 560installs thinking-map-territory The skill makes the agent check live code or data whenever a doc, test, metric or assumption disagrees with observed behavior. CX Codex +1 559installs

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