| name | s4h |
| description | Master orchestration skill. Takes any situation in plain English, identifies the underlying goal, designs a multi-skill reasoning workflow, and executes it sequentially — feeding each skill's output into the next. Use when you say 'help me think through this', 'I need to figure out what to do', 'where do I start', or any time you want structured thinking applied end-to-end rather than routed to a single tool. |
Human
The master orchestration skill. You describe your situation and goal. This skill designs a tailored reasoning workflow — an ordered sequence of skills from across all 23 categories — then executes each step in sequence, feeding what each step reveals into the next. The result is compounding clarity, not a single tool's take.
Your Process
Step 1: Intake
If the user hasn't described their situation, ask:
What are you trying to achieve? Describe the situation and what a good outcome looks like.
Wait for their response before proceeding. Aim to understand:
- The goal: what does success look like?
- The obstacle: what's making this hard?
- The decision point: what are they about to do, decide, or communicate?
If any of these are unclear after reading their description, ask one targeted follow-up question before designing the plan.
Framing check: Confirm the specific situation before continuing. State what you've identified — the goal, the obstacle, and the decision point — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the goal, obstacle, and what they're about to do or decide]. Is that right?"
- Header: "Framing"
- Options:
- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
Step 2: Design the Workflow
Design an ordered sequence of 2–5 skills that together address the goal. Each skill in the sequence should serve a distinct function, and the output of each should meaningfully inform the next.
Sequence design principles:
- Start with framing before analysis. If the problem framing might be wrong, begin with
assumption-excavator or sensory-structured-observation before applying analytical tools.
- Generate before evaluating. If options are needed, put generation skills (
creativity-alternatives, decision-option-mapping, concept-fan) before evaluation skills (decision-criteria-weighting, logic-check, ethics-check).
- Understand people before designing for them. If the goal involves others' reactions, run
emotional-motivation-mapping or communication-audience-modeling before communication-objection-mapping or ethics-impact-scan.
- Validate before committing. If the goal ends in a decision or action, close with a stress-test skill (
decision-premortem-analysis, constraint-hardness-testing, logic-fixer).
- End with synthesis when the goal is understanding. For exploratory goals, close with a skill that produces a consolidated view (
systems-leverage-analysis, narrative-frame-analysis, aesthetic-coherence-check).
Common workflow patterns:
| Goal type | Typical sequence |
|---|
| Make a complex decision | assumption-excavator → decision-option-mapping → decision-criteria-weighting → decision-premortem-analysis |
| Solve a stuck problem | assumption-excavator → creativity-lateral-thinking → creativity-alternatives → constraint-hardness-testing |
| Understand a human situation | emotional-motivation-mapping → social-power-mapping → communication-audience-modeling → ethics-empathy-circle |
| Communicate something difficult | communication-audience-modeling → communication-objection-mapping → communication-clarity-audit |
| Evaluate a plan or proposal | logic-check → decision-premortem-analysis → ethics-impact-scan → constraint-hardness-testing |
| Think through a strategy | systems-leverage-analysis → strategy-terrain → strategy-positioning → decision-premortem-analysis |
| Write or reshape something | writing-issues → writing-restructure → writing-tone-alignment → writing-line-editing |
| Understand a system or pattern | systems-feedback-mapping → systems-leverage-analysis → historical-precedent-analysis |
Use these as starting points. Adapt to the specific situation.
Before narrowing: Show the full candidate workflow to the user before committing to a sequence. Use AskUserQuestion:
- Question: "I've drafted a workflow of [N] steps. Before I lock it in, are there any steps you'd flag as especially important, any you'd cut, or any angle I've missed?"
- Header: "Prioritise"
- Options:
- Proceed with this sequence — the plan looks right
- Flag one step — user will name a step to prioritise or adjust
- Add a missing angle — user will describe a lens or skill not yet included
Step 3: Present the Plan
Show the user the designed workflow before executing. Format it as an ordered list with the rationale for each step and the connection to the next:
Here's the plan I'd run for this:
1. **[skill-name]** — [why we start here; what it will surface]
→ feeds into step 2 by [how its output informs the next step]
2. **[skill-name]** — [what it does given step 1's output]
→ feeds into step 3 by [how its output informs the next step]
3. **[skill-name]** — [what it does given steps 1–2's output]
[last step: what we'll have at the end]
Then ask: "Run this plan, adjust it, or go straight to a specific step?"
Use AskUserQuestion with:
- Question: "Ready to run the plan?"
- Header: "Direction"
- Options:
- Run the full plan — Execute each step in sequence now
- Adjust the plan — Tell me what to change before we start
- Skip to step [N] — Jump directly to a specific step
- Just run one skill — Pick the single most useful tool and run it now
Step 4: Execute — Sequential with Chaining
Run the first skill immediately. After each skill completes, pause and use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move before continuing.
Before each step (after the first), output a brief handoff:
[skill-name] complete.
Key finding: [1–2 sentences on what this step revealed and why it matters].
Then use AskUserQuestion to present what to do next:
- Question: "What's the next move?" (adapt to what was just found — e.g. "We've surfaced 5 assumptions. What now?")
- Header: "Next"
- Options: (build dynamically — 2–3 logical next skills given what the current step revealed, plus a wrap-up option)
- Label:
/[skill-name], Description: [one sentence on why this fits as a follow-on and what it will produce given the current output]
- (repeat for each next skill, up to 3)
- Label: "Wrap up", Description: "Synthesise what we have so far and close out"
How to select next skill options:
Pick skills that directly consume the current output. Ask: given what we just learned, what's the most useful next question to answer?
| If the current step produced… | Strong next skills |
|---|
| Surfaced hidden assumptions | creativity-lateral-thinking, decision-option-mapping, constraint-hardness-testing |
| A list of options | decision-criteria-weighting, probability-scenario-weighting, decision-premortem-analysis |
| A stress-test or failure map | constraint-workaround-mapping, logic-fixer, strategy-positioning |
| A map of stakeholders or motivations | communication-objection-mapping, ethics-empathy-circle, social-incentive-analysis |
| A logic or argument check | logic-fixer, ethics-check, constraint-hardness-testing |
| A systems or leverage map | strategy-positioning, resource-bottleneck-analysis, temporal-horizon-mapping |
| A creative set of directions | decision-criteria-weighting, creativity-plus-minus-interesting, constraint-hardness-testing |
| A communication or framing analysis | writing-argument, narrative-frame-analysis, communication-clarity-audit |
When the user selects a skill, run it on the situation context plus all accumulated output so far. Do not re-explain the situation from scratch — build on what prior steps established.
If the user selects "Wrap up" at any point, jump to Step 5.
Step 5: Synthesize
After all steps complete, output a synthesis section:
What the full sequence revealed:
- List 3–5 findings that emerged from the workflow as a whole — insights that no single step showed on its own.
The key tension or trade-off:
- Name the central conflict the workflow exposed, if any.
Recommended next action:
- One concrete thing to do, decide, or communicate based on everything above.
What to revisit:
- If any assumption or finding in the workflow turned out to be load-bearing but uncertain, flag it here.
Notes
- The goal drives the plan, not the problem type. The same problem ("I need to decide X") could warrant different workflows depending on whether the goal is speed, thoroughness, buy-in, or ethical grounding.
- 2–3 steps is often better than 5. A tight two-skill sequence with strong chaining beats a sprawling five-step plan where the connections are thin.
- Adapt as you go. If step 2 reveals the situation is fundamentally different from what step 1 assumed, redesign the remaining steps rather than running the original plan on stale premises.
- The handoff is the skill. The value of this workflow is what transfers between steps. Never skip the explicit connection from one step to the next.
- If the user just wants one skill, use the routing logic from the original human skill — present 3–4 options, let them pick, run it. Not every situation needs orchestration.
