Run any Skill in Manus with one click

reasoning-orchestrator

Stars6

Forks2

UpdatedApril 19, 2026 at 07:00

Apply this skill first whenever the user presents a problem, question, or situation that requires structured thinking — before reaching for any specific reasoning framework. Triggers on any substantive request to evaluate, analyze, diagnose, decide, design, improve, understand, or learn from something. This is the entry point for the reasoning skill collection. If you are unsure which reasoning skill to use, always start here.

Installation

Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.

Run Skill in Manus

Source

AndurilCode

AndurilCode/craftwork

View GitHub Repository View Creator Repositories

Download

Run Skill in Manus

Related occupationsSOC

Based on SOC occupation classification

Software DevelopersComputer and Mathematical Occupations·SOC 15-1252

SKILL.md

readonly

More from this repository

same repository

automate

AndurilCode/craftwork

Build automation scripts and pipelines that use coding-agent CLIs (Claude Code, Codex, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot CLI) in headless/non-interactive mode as the AI engine, or delegate work to cloud agents (`gh agent-task`) that open pull requests asynchronously. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write a shell script, CI job, cron task, batch processor, webhook handler, or any automation that shells out to `claude`, `codex`, `gemini`, `copilot`, or `gh agent-task` — single-turn prompts, multi-turn agentic loops, parallel fan-out across files/folders, structured JSON outputs consumed by downstream tools, or cloud-delegated tasks that produce PRs. Trigger on phrases like "script that uses Claude", "automate with Claude Code", "headless Claude", "batch process files with an LLM", "pipeline with codex exec", "gemini -p", "copilot --autopilot", "gh agent-task create", "GitHub Action that calls Claude", "cron job to review PRs", "agent loop in bash", "dispatch an agent task to open a PR", "fleet-wide agent-tas

2026-04-196

causal-inference

AndurilCode/craftwork

Apply causal inference whenever the user is interpreting metrics, debugging system behavior, reading A/B test results, or trying to understand whether an observed change was caused by an action or by something else. Triggers on phrases like "X caused Y", "since we deployed this, metrics changed", "the A/B test showed a lift", "why did this metric move?", "is this correlation or causation?", "we changed X and Y improved", "how do we know this worked?", "the data shows…", or any situation where conclusions are being drawn from observational data. Also trigger before any decision based on metric interpretation — confusing correlation with causation leads to interventions that don't work and misattribution of credit. Never assume causation without applying this skill.

2026-04-196

ethical-reasoning

AndurilCode/craftwork

Apply ethical reasoning whenever the user faces a decision, design, or action with moral implications — especially when someone could be harmed, rights could be violated, or values are in tension. Triggers on phrases like "is this the right thing to do?", "what are the ethical implications?", "who could this harm?", "should we build this?", "is this fair?", "what are our obligations?", "value trade-off", "responsible AI". Use proactively when reviewing any high-stakes decision, product design affecting vulnerable populations, or action where the beneficiaries and those bearing costs are different groups.

2026-04-196

execution-planning

AndurilCode/craftwork

Apply execution-planning whenever the user has made a decision and needs to turn it into action — decomposing work, sequencing tasks, estimating timelines, and assigning ownership. Triggers on phrases like "how do we execute this?", "break this into tasks", "what's the project plan?", "create a roadmap", "what are the dependencies?", "who does what by when?", "how long will this take to build?". Use proactively after decision-synthesis or architecture-evaluation produces a committed decision that requires coordinated implementation.

2026-04-196

experimental-design

AndurilCode/craftwork

Apply experimental-design whenever the user needs to test a hypothesis, validate an assumption, or determine whether something actually works. Triggers on phrases like "how do we test this?", "design an experiment", "what would prove this?", "set up an A/B test", "how do we validate this hypothesis?", "what's the right control?", "is this result significant?", "what sample size do we need?". Use proactively when decisions rest on untested assumptions — designing the test before collecting data prevents post-hoc rationalization.

2026-04-196

fairness-auditing

AndurilCode/craftwork

Apply fairness auditing whenever the user describes a system, algorithm, policy, or process that allocates outcomes across groups and wants to know whether it is equitable. Triggers on phrases like "is this fair?", "disparate impact", "bias in the system", "does this discriminate?", "algorithmic fairness", "who's disadvantaged by this?", "equitable outcomes". Use proactively when reviewing any allocation mechanism, scoring system, or automated decision pipeline that affects people differently based on group membership.

2026-04-196

name

reasoning-orchestrator

description

Reasoning Orchestrator

CRITICAL: This skill does NOT perform any reasoning itself. It plans and delegates. All reasoning is done by reading and applying individual skill files, or by spawning subagents. Do not shortcut by reasoning inline.

How to Execute This Skill

Follow these steps exactly, in order. Do not skip or collapse steps.

STEP 1 — Triage (no skill file needed)

Classify the situation across these dimensions and write the classification before proceeding:

Temporal direction: Forward-looking / Present-state / Backward-looking

Problem maturity:

Unframed — problem itself may not be correctly defined
Framed, unsolved — problem understood, solution not found
Solved, needs validation — solution exists, needs stress-testing
Decided, needs learning — something happened, extract signal

Primary obstacle:

Don't understand the system → diagnostic track
Understand it, stuck on solutions → generative track
Have solutions, need to choose → convergence track
Something went wrong → retrospective track
About to commit to something → adversarial track
Don't know what we don't know → epistemic track
Incentives misaligned / need to design rules → strategic track

Domain complexity (if unclear, assign unknown and include cynefin-framework in Step 2): Clear / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic / Unknown

Write the triage output:

TRIAGE
Temporal: [forward / present / backward]
Maturity: [label]
Obstacle: [label] → [track]
Domain: [label]

STEP 2 — Build the Execution Plan (no skill file needed)

Using the triage and the routing table, produce a numbered execution plan. Label each step SEQUENTIAL or PARALLEL. Do not execute yet.

Routing table — entry points by obstacle:

Obstacle	Execution plan
Don't know what we're dealing with	PARALLEL: epistemic-mapping ∥ cynefin-framework ∥ cognitive-bias-detection → re-triage
Don't understand the system / why it's failing	PARALLEL: system-thinking ∥ theory-of-constraints → SEQUENTIAL: five-whys-root-cause → decision-synthesis
Don't understand the system / strategic agents involved	PARALLEL: system-thinking ∥ game-theoretic-analysis → SEQUENTIAL: five-whys-root-cause → decision-synthesis
Plan / design needs validation	PARALLEL: inversion-premortem ∥ red-teaming ∥ second-order-thinking → SEQUENTIAL: cognitive-bias-detection → decision-synthesis
Scaling / trajectory / "what if we push this?"	SEQUENTIAL: limit-thinking → PARALLEL: second-order-thinking ∥ scenario-planning → decision-synthesis
Stuck, all solutions feel the same	SEQUENTIAL: epistemic-mapping → PARALLEL: lateral-thinking ∥ analogical-thinking ∥ first-principles-thinking → SEQUENTIAL: inversion-premortem → decision-synthesis
Need to decide between options	PARALLEL: scenario-planning ∥ probabilistic-thinking ∥ fermi-estimation → decision-synthesis
Something went wrong / post-mortem	SEQUENTIAL: retrospective-counterfactual → PARALLEL: five-whys-root-cause ∥ epistemic-mapping → SEQUENTIAL: cognitive-bias-detection
Long-term strategic commitment	PARALLEL: epistemic-mapping ∥ cognitive-bias-detection ∥ cynefin-framework → PARALLEL: scenario-planning ∥ probabilistic-thinking ∥ fermi-estimation → PARALLEL: inversion-premortem ∥ red-teaming ∥ second-order-thinking → SEQUENTIAL: game-theoretic-analysis → decision-synthesis
Incentives misaligned / need to design rules	SEQUENTIAL: game-theoretic-analysis → PARALLEL: second-order-thinking ∥ red-teaming → decision-synthesis
Synthesize evidence from multiple sources	SEQUENTIAL: evidence-synthesis → decision-synthesis

Write the plan:

EXECUTION PLAN
Step 1 — PARALLEL: [skill-a] ∥ [skill-b] ∥ [skill-c]
Step 2 — SEQUENTIAL: [skill-d]
Step 3 — PARALLEL: [skill-e] ∥ [skill-f]
Step 4 — SEQUENTIAL: [skill-g]

STEP 3 — Execute the Plan (step by step, never all at once)

Work through one step at a time.

For a SEQUENTIAL step:

Read the skill file: view: skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md
Apply the skill to the current problem context, following the methodology exactly
Write the output in the skill's output format

Write the routing decision:

STEP [N] COMPLETE — SEQUENTIAL: [skill-name]
Key finding: [1–2 sentences]
Routing to Step [N+1]: [reason based on finding]

Proceed to next step

For a PARALLEL step:

Spawn one subagent per skill using the Task tool. Each receives:
- Full problem description
- Findings from prior sequential steps
- This instruction: "Read skills/[skill-name]/SKILL.md then apply that skill's full methodology to the problem. Output your findings in that skill's output format. Do not perform other reasoning."
Wait for all subagents to complete

Synthesize their outputs:

SYNTHESIS — Step [N] PARALLEL: [skill-a] ∥ [skill-b] ∥ [skill-c]

Convergent findings (2+ skills agree — higher confidence):
- [finding]

Divergent findings (1 skill only — worth noting):
- [finding] (from [skill])

Contradictions (skills disagree — resolve before proceeding):
- [skill-a] says [X], [skill-b] says [Y] → resolution: [...]

Key inputs for Step [N+1]: [what the next step needs]

Proceed to next step

STEP 4 — Terminate

Stop when:

decision-synthesis has produced a decision with acceptable confidence
The problem is understood well enough to act without further analysis
4+ steps without converging: stop, flag as likely unframed, restart from Step 1 with epistemic-mapping as the only entry point

Write the termination output:

CHAIN COMPLETE
Steps executed: [list with SEQUENTIAL/PARALLEL labels]
Key finding: [1–2 sentences]
Recommended action: [what to do now]

Then propose follow-up skills. Do NOT auto-execute. Common follow-ups:

Decision made → "Want me to write this up? (technical-writing for ADR/RFC, argument-craft to structure the case)"
Plan needed → "Want me to break this into an execution plan? (execution-planning)"
Communication needed → "Want a presentation? (presentation-craft) or draft announcement? (technical-writing)"

Present only relevant follow-ups. If none needed, say so.

Parallelization Reference

Skills within a cluster apply independent lenses and never depend on each other's output.

Pattern	Skills	Use when
P1 — Adversarial	inversion-premortem ∥ red-teaming ∥ second-order-thinking	Validating a plan before commitment
P2 — Generative	lateral-thinking ∥ analogical-thinking ∥ first-principles-thinking	Stuck, need new options
P3 — Diagnostic	system-thinking ∥ theory-of-constraints	System failing, need to understand why
P4 — Uncertainty	scenario-planning ∥ probabilistic-thinking ∥ fermi-estimation	Decision needs quantification
P5 — Meta-cognitive	epistemic-mapping ∥ cognitive-bias-detection ∥ cynefin-framework	Clean the reasoning environment first
P6 — Strategic	game-theoretic-analysis ∥ second-order-thinking	Multiple agents with competing incentives

Post-Step Routing Reference

After completing any step, adjust the plan if findings warrant:

Completed skill	Finding	Adjust plan to include
epistemic-mapping	Dangerous assumptions found	first-principles-thinking (sequential, next)
cynefin-framework	Domain = Complex	lateral-thinking ∥ scenario-planning (parallel) instead of structured analysis
cynefin-framework	Domain = Chaotic	Act immediately; retrospective-counterfactual after stabilization
game-theoretic-analysis	Nash Equilibrium ≠ Pareto Optimum	Mechanism design — decision-synthesis with design constraints
game-theoretic-analysis	Information asymmetry identified	red-teaming on exploitability (sequential)
game-theoretic-analysis	Repeated game dynamics	second-order-thinking on reputation effects (sequential)
system-thinking	Bottleneck identified	theory-of-constraints (sequential)
five-whys-root-cause	Root cause is causal claim	evidence-synthesis (sequential)
five-whys-root-cause	Multiple root causes	decision-synthesis (sequential, to prioritize)
adversarial panel (P1)	High-severity risks	cognitive-bias-detection on the risk analysis (sequential)
generative panel (P2)	All options weak	epistemic-mapping — frame may be wrong (sequential, restart)
uncertainty panel (P4)	High uncertainty persists	inversion-premortem on worst-case scenario (sequential)
limit-thinking	Asymptotic ceiling found	theory-of-constraints to identify the constraint (sequential)
limit-thinking	Reversal / collapse found	first-principles-thinking — is this the right variable? (sequential)
limit-thinking	Optimal operating point identified	decision-synthesis (sequential)
second-order-thinking	Consequence chain suggests trajectory	limit-thinking to trace to the extreme (sequential)
decision-synthesis	Key assumption too uncertain	epistemic-mapping → validate before committing
evidence-synthesis	Evidence synthesized, decision needed	decision-synthesis (sequential)
retrospective-counterfactual	Systemic cause found	system-thinking ∥ five-whys-root-cause (parallel)

Skill Registry

Skill	File path	Parallelizes with
epistemic-mapping	skills/epistemic-mapping/SKILL.md	cynefin-framework, cognitive-bias-detection
cynefin-framework	skills/cynefin-framework/SKILL.md	epistemic-mapping, cognitive-bias-detection
system-thinking	skills/system-thinking/SKILL.md	theory-of-constraints
theory-of-constraints	skills/theory-of-constraints/SKILL.md	system-thinking
five-whys-root-cause	skills/five-whys-root-cause/SKILL.md	—
cognitive-bias-detection	skills/cognitive-bias-detection/SKILL.md	epistemic-mapping, cynefin-framework
inversion-premortem	skills/inversion-premortem/SKILL.md	red-teaming, second-order-thinking
red-teaming	skills/red-teaming/SKILL.md	inversion-premortem, second-order-thinking
second-order-thinking	skills/second-order-thinking/SKILL.md	inversion-premortem, red-teaming
probabilistic-thinking	skills/probabilistic-thinking/SKILL.md	scenario-planning, fermi-estimation
fermi-estimation	skills/fermi-estimation/SKILL.md	probabilistic-thinking, scenario-planning
scenario-planning	skills/scenario-planning/SKILL.md	probabilistic-thinking, fermi-estimation
game-theoretic-analysis	skills/game-theoretic-analysis/SKILL.md	second-order-thinking
limit-thinking	skills/limit-thinking/SKILL.md	second-order-thinking, scenario-planning
lateral-thinking	skills/lateral-thinking/SKILL.md	analogical-thinking, first-principles-thinking
analogical-thinking	skills/analogical-thinking/SKILL.md	lateral-thinking, first-principles-thinking
first-principles-thinking	skills/first-principles-thinking/SKILL.md	lateral-thinking, analogical-thinking
bisociative-creativity	skills/bisociative-creativity/SKILL.md	standalone
decision-synthesis	skills/decision-synthesis/SKILL.md	runs after all others
decision-intelligence	skills/decision-intelligence/SKILL.md	standalone (single-option evaluation)
retrospective-counterfactual	skills/retrospective-counterfactual/SKILL.md	five-whys-root-cause
evidence-synthesis	skills/evidence-synthesis/SKILL.md	—