scenarios

name	scenarios
description	Run divergent scenario generation (the fan operation) using the roster defined in agent/scenario-roster.md. Takes a situation description and produces a set of distinct narrative scenarios exploring different possible futures. Every run writes a scenario record to <situation-dir>/scenarios/ (00–03 files). Use when the user types '/scenarios [situation]' or asks for scenario generation.

Scenario Generation Skill

Generate a set of divergent narrative scenarios from an ambiguous situation. Each scenario is narrated independently by a character from the scenario roster, exploring a distinct possible future under stated assumptions. The output is a scenario set — not a forecast, not a probability distribution, but a collection of internally consistent narratives that collectively span the space of plausible futures.

This is the fan operation — the divergent half of the fan/funnel duality formalized in palgebra/duality-and-composition.md. The convergent half is the committee (/committee). The composition — fan then funnel — is the deliberated choice pipeline.

Situation resolution

The skill determines where to write output using this precedence:

1. --situation <path> — if the user provides this on invocation, use <path> as the situation directory directly.
2. Config file — read situations_root from .claude/cyberneutics-config.yaml (path relative to cyberneutics repo root), then append <topic-slug>/.
3. Default — use ~/situations/<topic-slug>/.

Once the situation directory is resolved:

• Create the directory if it doesn't exist.
• If situation.md doesn't exist, create it with this template:

  ---
  situation:
    created: YYYY-MM-DD
    topic: "short topic description"
    slug: "topic-slug"
  ---
  
  # [Topic]
  
  [Narrative description from the user's input]
  

• Write scenario output to <situation-dir>/scenarios/.

Rosters (agent/scenario-roster.md) are always read from the cyberneutics repo — they are part of the methodology, not the situation output.

When to use

• User types /scenarios [situation description]
• User asks to "explore possible futures for [X]" or "generate scenarios for [Y]"
• The problem's ambiguity is primarily about what might happen rather than what to do given what we know
• Before a /committee run, when the committee should deliberate across explored futures rather than a single framing
• When "what are we missing?" means "what futures haven't we imagined?" rather than "what perspectives haven't we heard?"

When NOT to use

• The decision is well-framed and the question is which option to choose → use /committee directly
• The user wants adversarial stress-testing of a specific proposal → /committee
• The user wants to evaluate an existing plan → /review or /committee

The Scenario Roster

Read the roster from agent/scenario-roster.md. That file contains the core character definitions (4 narrative lenses) and the extension mechanism for domain-specific characters.

If agent/scenario-roster.md does not exist or is unreadable, tell the user and stop. Do not fall back to a hardcoded roster.

What the skill does

When invoked, the skill:

1. Reads the roster from agent/scenario-roster.md to get core characters
2. Parses extensions if the user provided a with: clause
3. Frames the situation (Phase 0) — structures the user's input into a situation with explicit ambiguity markers
4. Creates the scenario record directory and writes pre-generation files
5. Generates scenarios independently per character (Phase 1)
6. Assesses coverage across divergence axes (Phase 2–3)
7. Flags gaps if the scenario set has blind spots

Resource equation

situation × scenario-roster × scenario-parameters → scenario-set  [Fan]
  {catalytic: scenario-roster, scenario-parameters}

The roster and parameters shape the output without being consumed.

Situation framing guidance

If the user provides a vague situation: Prompt for specificity before generating. A well-framed situation includes:

• What's uncertain: The ambiguities that scenarios should explore
• What's at stake: Why this situation matters, what depends on it
• Time horizon: How far into the future scenarios should project
• Key actors: Who or what has agency in this situation

If the user provides a rich description: Extract the above elements and confirm before proceeding.

Examples:

Bad: "What happens with AI?"

Good: "Our 50-person B2B SaaS company has been approached by a larger competitor about acquisition. The offer is 3x revenue. We have 18 months of runway. The founding team is split — CTO wants to sell, CEO wants to raise Series B. Key uncertainty: will the market consolidate (favoring acquisition) or fragment (favoring independence)?"

Scenario parameters

Parameters constrain the fan's divergence. They can be user-specified or defaulted:

Parameter	Default	Description
Divergence axes	Derived from situation framing	The dimensions along which scenarios should differ (e.g., "market consolidation vs. fragmentation", "regulatory tightening vs. loosening")
Time horizon	2–3 years	How far into the future each scenario projects
External shocks	None (characters generate their own)	Specific events to include (e.g., "key person departure", "regulatory change")
Scenario count	One per character (4 core + extensions)	Can be increased for finer coverage

Scenario record directory

Every /scenarios run writes a record to the situation's scenarios directory.

Location: <situation-dir>/scenarios/ (see Situation resolution above for how <situation-dir> is determined).

Topic-slug: Derive from the situation: lowercase, replace spaces with -, remove special characters. Example: "acquisition offer from competitor" → acquisition-offer. The slug is used to name the situation directory when one isn't specified via --situation.

Files, in order:

00-situation.md

Markdown with YAML front matter. The framed situation.

---
situation:
  date: YYYY-MM-DD
  topic: "short description"
  uncertainties:
    - "uncertainty 1"
    - "uncertainty 2"
  stakes: "what depends on this"
  time_horizon: "2-3 years"
  key_actors:
    - "actor 1"
    - "actor 2"
  raw_input: "the user's original text"
---

Body: narrative framing of the situation (2–3 paragraphs).

01-roster.md

Copy the YAML front matter from agent/scenario-roster.md, plus any user-specified extensions. Records which roster was used for this run.

01-parameters.md

Markdown with YAML front matter recording the parameters used.

---
parameters:
  divergence_axes:
    - axis: "axis name"
      poles: ["pole A", "pole B"]
    - axis: "axis name"
      poles: ["pole A", "pole B"]
  time_horizon: "2-3 years"
  external_shocks: []
  scenario_count: 4
---

Body: brief rationale for the divergence axes chosen (why these axes capture the situation's key uncertainties).

02-scenarios.md

The scenario set. YAML front matter with index metadata, then one section per scenario.

---
scenario_set:
  situation: "<topic-slug>"
  count: 4
  scenarios:
    - id: 1
      narrator: "Continuity"
      title: "short title"
      assumption_set: ["assumption 1", "assumption 2"]
    - id: 2
      narrator: "Disruption"
      title: "short title"
      assumption_set: ["assumption 1", "assumption 2"]
    # ...
---

Each scenario section contains:

• Title: a memorable name for this future (not "Scenario 1")
• Narrator: which character generated it
• Assumptions: the specific assumptions this scenario makes (stated explicitly)
• Narrative (3–5 paragraphs): a coherent story of how this future unfolds, told from the narrator's worldview. Should be vivid and specific — names, numbers, dates, concrete events — not abstract hand-waving.
• Key implications: what this future means for the decision at hand (2–3 bullets)
• Early warning signs: observable signals that would indicate this future is materializing (2–3 bullets)

Scenario generation rules:

1. Each character narrates independently — no awareness of other scenarios
2. Each scenario must be internally consistent — the narrative follows from its stated assumptions
3. Scenarios should be distinct — they should differ on at least one divergence axis
4. Scenarios should be specific — concrete events, not vague trends
5. Scenarios should be plausible — not necessarily probable, but not absurd. The value is in coverage, not likelihood.

03-assessment.md

Coverage assessment. Markdown with YAML front matter.

---
assessment:
  date: YYYY-MM-DD
  scenario_count: 4
  coverage:
    axes_covered:
      - axis: "axis name"
        covered_by: [1, 3]
    axes_gaps: []
  sufficiency: ADEQUATE | GAPS_IDENTIFIED
  recommendations: []
---

Body: narrative assessment of the scenario set's coverage.

Coverage checks:

1. Axis coverage: Does at least one scenario explore each divergence axis?
2. Quadrant coverage: Are all four quadrants of the 2×2 (change × valence) represented?
3. Blind spots: Are there plausible futures that no scenario explores?
4. Distinctness: Are the scenarios genuinely different, or do they converge on similar narratives from different narrators?

If GAPS_IDENTIFIED: List specific gaps and recommend either:

• Generating additional scenarios (with guidance on which character or extension to use)
• Adjusting parameters (wider divergence axes, different time horizon)
• Proceeding with noted limitations

Usage patterns

Basic invocation

/scenarios Our main product line faces potential disruption from open-source alternatives

The skill frames the situation, generates scenarios with the core roster, and assesses coverage. Output goes to the situation directory resolved via config or default (~/situations/<topic-slug>/scenarios/).

With explicit situation directory

/scenarios --situation ../situations/product-disruption Our main product line faces potential disruption from open-source alternatives

Writes output to ../situations/product-disruption/scenarios/.

With extensions

/scenarios [situation] with: Regulator (lens: regulatory-pressure, explores: how data privacy laws reshape the competitive landscape)

Generates core scenarios plus one additional from the Regulator lens.

With explicit parameters

/scenarios [situation]
  axes: market-consolidation, regulatory-environment
  horizon: 5 years
  shocks: key-competitor-acquisition, new-EU-regulation

Feeding into committee (the deliberated choice)

After a /scenarios run, the scenario set can serve as input to /committee. If both skills target the same situation directory (via --situation or config), the committee automatically detects existing scenarios:

/committee --situation ../situations/acquisition-offer What should we do about the acquisition offer?

Or explicitly specify the scenario context:

/committee [decision question] scenario_context: <situation-dir>/scenarios/

The committee then deliberates across the generated scenarios — which futures to optimize for, which to survive, which to dismiss. See artifacts/deliberated-choice-workflow.md for the full workflow.

Intervention patterns

Watch for and correct these failure modes during generation:

Convergent scenarios — Different narrators producing essentially the same future with different labels.

Intervention: Check whether scenarios differ on stated divergence axes. If two scenarios agree on all axes, regenerate one with explicit instructions to explore the opposite pole of at least one axis.

Abstract hand-waving — Scenarios that describe trends rather than events. "The market evolves" instead of "Company X launches product Y in Q3."

Intervention: Demand specifics. Each scenario needs at least: one named event, one concrete consequence, one measurable outcome.

Implausible extremes — Scenarios so extreme they're not useful for decision-making. (See Disruption's failure mode.)

Intervention: Trace the causal chain. Each step in the narrative should follow plausibly from the previous step. Disconnect = implausibility.

Missing assumptions — Scenarios that don't state what they're assuming.

Intervention: Extract assumptions and state them explicitly before the narrative. If the narrator can't state assumptions, the scenario is underdetermined.

What success looks like

After running /scenarios, the user should be able to:

• Name 3–4 genuinely different futures for their situation
• Articulate the assumptions that distinguish each future
• Identify which uncertainties matter most (the divergence axes)
• See early warning signs for each future
• Decide whether to proceed to /committee for deliberation or iterate with different parameters

The scenarios don't predict the future — they map the space of plausible futures so the user can prepare for multiple possibilities and recognize which one is materializing.

Integration with other skills

Skill	Relationship
/committee	Downstream — scenario set feeds into committee deliberation (auto-detected when both target the same situation, or via explicit scenario_context:)
/review	Does not apply directly to scenarios (review evaluates committee transcripts)
/probe	Upstream — probe runs the composed scenarios→committee pipeline N times
/string-diagram	The fan operation can be visualized as a one-to-many spider

Files reference

• Operational roster: agent/scenario-roster.md
• Theoretical grounding: palgebra/duality-and-composition.md
• Composition workflow: artifacts/deliberated-choice-workflow.md
• Practitioner guide: artifacts/scenario-generation.md
• Committee skill (the funnel): .claude/skills/committee/SKILL.md