القائمة
Discover what you actually value — not what you think you value — by examining behavior, trade-offs, and revealed preferences.
يُحدَّد Prompt الذي يراجع المصدر أولًا بشكل افتراضي. يمكنك التبديل إلى أمر مباشر أو تنزيل نسخة محلية.
اقرأ SKILL.md وأي ملفات مرافقة يعرضها SkillsMP قبل أن تقرر التثبيت.
التثبيت باستخدام Codex أو Claude انسخ هذا Prompt والصقه في Codex أو Claude أو مساعد آخر ليراجع صفحة Skill ويثبّتها لك.
يتجاوز الأمر المباشر Prompt المخصّص للمراجعة. افحص المصدر قبل تشغيله.
npx skills add https://github.com/benjam3n/reasoningtool --skill vcl-value-clarificationيبقى الأمر في سطر واحد. مرّر أفقيًا لمراجعته كاملًا قبل النسخ.
تفضّل نسخة محلية؟ نزّل الملفات المتاحة حاليًا لدى SkillsMP.
Route any input through a branching question tree to narrow down the optimal response strategy before writing. Two stages — PERCEIVE (classify input) then ACT (select response). Covers all prompt types.
Generate exhaustive guesses about user input using ALL search methods with coverage tracking. Guessing is SEARCH through possibility space. Tracks space created vs space covered to ensure comprehensive exploration.
Systematically evaluate and select from a set of guesses, options, or possibilities. Combines ARAW analysis with prioritization to determine which guesses are strong, weak, actionable, or eliminable.
استنادا إلى تصنيف SOC المهني
عرض SKILL.md
| name | vcl - Value Clarification |
| description | Discover what you actually value — not what you think you value — by examining behavior, trade-offs, and revealed preferences. |
| output | {"format":"prose"} |
Input: $ARGUMENTS
Start with what the person says they value.
STATED VALUES:
1. [value] — "I believe [how they describe it]"
2. [value]
3. [value]
4. [value]
5. [value]
If fewer than 3, prompt: "What would you fight to protect? What makes you angry when violated?"
Values live in behavior, not words. Examine where time, money, and energy actually go.
TIME AUDIT: Where do the last 7 days actually go?
- [activity]: [hours/week] — reveals value of [X]
- [activity]: [hours/week] — reveals value of [X]
MONEY AUDIT: Where do discretionary dollars go?
- [category]: reveals value of [X]
ENERGY AUDIT: What gets full attention vs. gets procrastinated?
- Full attention: [X] — reveals value of [X]
- Procrastinated: [X] — reveals low priority of [X]
Present forced choices to reveal true priorities. Each pair should pit two plausible values against each other.
| Scenario | Choice A (value) | Choice B (value) | Pick |
|---|---|---|---|
| Job offer: 2x salary but 60hr weeks | Financial security | Free time | ? |
| Friend asks you to lie for them | Loyalty | Honesty | ? |
| Promotion requires relocating away from family | Achievement | Connection | ? |
| Opportunity requires breaking a commitment | Growth | Reliability | ? |
| Speaking up will cost you socially | Integrity | Belonging | ? |
Customize scenarios to the person's actual context from $ARGUMENTS.
Compare stated values (Step 1) with behavioral evidence (Step 2) and trade-off choices (Step 3).
ALIGNMENT CHECK:
- [Stated value] → CONFIRMED by [behavior/choice] | CONTRADICTED by [behavior/choice]
- [Stated value] → CONFIRMED | CONTRADICTED
...
HIDDEN VALUES (not stated but revealed by behavior):
- [value] — evidence: [what shows this]
Flag any major gaps between stated and revealed values. These are not failures — they are data.
For each top value, ask: "What would you give up to protect this?"
VALUE: [X]
- Would you sacrifice money? [yes/no]
- Would you sacrifice a relationship? [yes/no]
- Would you sacrifice comfort? [yes/no]
- Would you sacrifice status? [yes/no]
- Would you sacrifice time? [yes/no]
SACRIFICE CEILING: [What they won't give up for this value]
Values you won't sacrifice anything for are aspirations, not values.
Rank by behavioral evidence, not stated importance.
VALUE HIERARCHY (by revealed behavior):
1. [VALUE] — strongest evidence: [what proves this]
2. [VALUE] — evidence: [X]
3. [VALUE] — evidence: [X]
4. [VALUE] — evidence: [X]
5. [VALUE] — evidence: [X]
ASPIRATIONAL VALUES (stated but not yet enacted):
- [value] — gap: [what would need to change]
CONFLICT ZONES:
- [value X] and [value Y] frequently collide when [situation]
Does current life structure support the revealed hierarchy?
ALIGNED: [What in life currently serves top values]
MISALIGNED: [What in life contradicts top values]
FIRST MOVE: [One concrete change to close the biggest gap]
Use with:
/mdr -> When values conflict and you need to choose between them/gu -> To connect values to concrete goals/ecoc -> To codify values into principles for a team/sdc -> To check if self-deception is distorting the value picture