| name | values-explorer |
| description | Use when someone is unclear about what actually matters to them, feeling torn between competing priorities, or agonizing over a choice where something important has to be sacrificed. Two moves: extract genuinely held values from behavioral... |
| scenarios | ["I keep making choices that feel wrong but I can't name why","Help me figure out what I actually value — not what I think I should value","I'm torn between two things I care deeply about","뭐가 진짜 나한테 중요한지 모르겠어","두 가지 가치관이 충돌해서 결정을 못 하겠어","내 삶에서 중요한 게 뭔지 정리하고 싶어"] |
| compatibility | {"optional":["think-tool","mcp-reasoner"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 가치 충돌 해결 프레임워크 선택에 유용합니다. mcp-reasoner는 네 가지 충돌 해결 경로를 탐색하는 데 사용할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."} |
Values Explorer
When to Use / When Not to Use
Use when:
- Success feels hollow — external achievement isn't producing satisfaction
- A recurring sense that choices feel wrong, without being able to name why
- Two values are pulling in opposite directions in a real decision
Not for:
- Information overload (use clarity-toolkit)
- Whole-life audit (use examined-life — it uses values as an input)
Process
Part 1 — Values Extraction
Goal: not a list of nice-sounding words, but a precise, evidenced account of what this person actually values.
Method 1 — Behavioral evidence. Forget self-report. Ask:
- What did you make time for in the last 3 months, even when inconvenient?
- When did spending money feel deeply right — not just pleasurable, but meaningful?
- When were you most proud (not successful — proud)?
- When were you most angry or morally outraged? What value was being violated?
Method 2 — Peak experience. A moment of feeling deeply alive, right, or at peace. What were you doing? What role were you playing? What value was being expressed?
Method 3 — Anger as compass. Anger at injustice → fairness. Anger at wasted time → purposefulness. Anger at betrayal → loyalty. Anger at own compromise → integrity.
Method 4 — Deathbed perspective. "What would you need to have done, been, or stood for for this period to feel well lived?"
Values inventory (5–8 maximum — more means too abstract):
Values Inventory
----------------
Value 1: [precise name — not "family" but "being genuinely present with people I love"]
Evidence: [specific behavior, moment, or pattern]
Current expression: thriving / adequate / starved
[repeat for each]
Most alive value: [most richly lived]
Most starved value: [most neglected — often the source of dissatisfaction]
Part 2 — Values Conflict Resolution
MCP notes: If think-tool is available, use it before selecting a framework — which one fits this specific conflict? If mcp-reasoner is available, use it to explore all four frameworks in parallel before committing.
Values conflicts are real. Freedom vs security. Achievement vs family. Honesty vs kindness. These are not problems with a right answer — they are tensions navigated with wisdom.
Name the conflict precisely: What are the two values? In what specific situation are they pulling opposite directions? What would choosing each cost?
Four navigation frameworks:
| Framework | When to use |
|---|
| Hierarchy in context | Ask: in this situation, this time in your life, which value is more essential to honor? |
| Cost accounting | Make costs explicit for each path — asymmetric costs usually emerge |
| Creative third | Is there an option that partially honors both at reduced intensity? (Not a compromise that honors neither) |
| ACT commitment | Choose one value, name explicitly what the other loses, and carry that loss with awareness |
ACT commitment frame: "I am choosing [A] in this situation. I value [B] deeply, and I am choosing not to honor it fully here, and I accept what that costs." This is deciding — not resolving.
Values conflict output:
Values Conflict Analysis
------------------------
Values in tension: [A] vs [B]
Specific situation: [concrete context]
If you honor [A]: What [B] loses / Cost level / Reversibility
If you honor [B]: What [A] loses / Cost level / Reversibility
Creative third option: [if one exists]
Cost asymmetry: [which path costs more and why]
ACT commitment frame: [what a conscious, eyes-open choice looks like]
Output Template
See inline formats in each section above. Summary structure:
Values Inventory: [5-8 values with evidence and expression rating]
Most alive: [richly lived value]
Most starved: [neglected value — often the source of dissatisfaction]
Values Conflict Analysis (when applicable):
Values in tension / Specific situation
Costs of each path / Reversibility / Creative third option
Cost asymmetry / ACT commitment frame
What Claude Does / What You Do
| Claude | You |
|---|
| Extracts values from behavioral evidence, not self-report | Provide specific moments, choices, and reactions to work from |
| Names the gap between declared and lived values | Sit with the gap without shame — it's information |
| Identifies the creative third option when it exists | Decide which framework fits this conflict |
| Frames the ACT commitment when no creative third is available | Make the committed choice and carry the acknowledged loss |
Related Skills
examined-life — for using values as input to a whole-life auditmotivation-explorer — when values gaps show up as hollow motivationflow-antigoal — for designing work and life conditions around lived values
