Systematic improvement of thinking patterns, decision quality, problem-solving abilities, and mental performance. Use when noticing cognitive biases, making important decisions, solving complex problems, or wanting to enhance mental clarity and effectiveness.
Installer avec Codex ou Claude Copiez ce prompt, collez-le dans Codex, Claude ou un autre assistant, puis laissez-le vérifier la page du skill et l'installer pour vous.
Une commande directe contourne le prompt de vérification. Examinez la source avant de l'exécuter.
Systematic improvement of thinking patterns, decision quality, problem-solving abilities, and mental performance. Use when noticing cognitive biases, making important decisions, solving complex problems, or wanting to enhance mental clarity and effectiveness.
Self-Improving Cognition
Structured approach to cognitive enhancement through measurable tracking of thinking patterns, bias identification, decision analysis, and mental skill development. Transforms vague "think better" into specific, improvable cognitive competencies.
## [DEC-YYYYMMDD-001] Career Path Decision**Decision Date**: 2026-03-12
**Importance**: High (career direction)
**Timeframe**: 6-12 month impact
**Status**: Decided (Option B)
### Context & Problem
Choose between:
-**Option A**: Stay current role (stable, limited growth)
-**Option B**: Take promotion (more stress, faster growth)
-**Option C**: Switch companies (unknown, potentially higher pay)
### Decision Process1.**Information Gathering** (3 days)
- Talked to 5 people in similar positions
- Researched market salaries
- Assessed personal tolerance for stress
2.**Criteria Weighting** - Growth potential: 30%
- Work-life balance: 25%
- Compensation: 20%
- Learning opportunity: 15%
- Team quality: 10%
3.**Option Scoring** (1-10 weighted)
- Option A: 6.2 (stable but stagnant)
- Option B: 7.8 (growth, manageable stress)
- Option C: 6.5 (high risk, high potential reward)
4.**Cognitive Bias Check** - Status Quo Bias: Considered (Option A attractive due to comfort)
- Loss Aversion: Addressed (willing to risk for growth)
- Overconfidence: Guarded against (consulted others)
- Sunk Cost: Irrelevant (no prior investment)
### Reasoning & Rationale-**Option B chosen** because:
1. Aligns with 3-year career goal (management track)
2. Stress increase tolerable (15% vs. 50% more pay)
3. Company investment in my growth (training budget)
4. Backup plan exists (can return to individual contributor if needed)
### Confidence Level & Uncertainty-**Confidence**: 8/10 in decision quality
-**Key Uncertainties**:
- Actual stress level in new role (estimated)
- Team dynamics with new reports (unknown)
- Company stability (market conditions)
-**Contingency Plans**:
- 3-month review: If stress > 7/10, implement coping strategies
- 6-month exit: If miserable, start job search with new title
### Expected Outcome vs. Actual Tracking-**Expected**: 20% skill growth, 50% pay increase, stress +2 points
-**Actual**: [To be filled after 3 months]
-**Variance Analysis**: [To be filled]
### Cognitive Lessons1.**Bias Management**: Successfully resisted status quo bias
2.**Decision Quality**: Structured approach improved confidence
3.**Information Sufficiency**: Gathered enough but not too much
4.**Emotion Integration**: Acknowledged fear but didn't let it decide
---
Problem-Solving Log
Append to .learnings/cognition/PROBLEMS.md:
## [PROB-YYYYMMDD-001] System Architecture Design Problem**Problem Date**: 2026-03-12
**Complexity**: High (multiple constraints, novel requirements)
**Time Spent**: 8 hours over 2 days
**Solution Status**: Resolved (hybrid approach)
### Problem Definition
Design scalable notification system supporting:
- 1M+ users
- 10+ notification types
- <100ms latency requirement
- 99.99% reliability
- Cost < $500/month at scale
### Solution Approaches Considered1.**Approach A**: Single monolithic service
- Pros: Simple, fast to build
- Cons: Hard to scale, single point of failure
- Viability: Low (scaling constraints)
2.**Approach B**: Microservices architecture
- Pros: Scalable, fault-tolerant
- Cons: Complex, operational overhead
- Viability: Medium (over-engineered for MVP)
3.**Approach C**: Serverless functions + queue
- Pros: Cost-effective, auto-scaling
- Cons: Cold start latency, vendor lock-in
- Viability: High (meets requirements)
4.**Approach D**: Hybrid (Approach C + simple service)
- Pros: Balances scalability and simplicity
- Cons: More moving parts
- Viability: Selected
### Breakthrough Insights1.**Core Realization**: 80% of notifications are 3 types → optimize those
2.**Pattern Recognition**: Similar to email sending systems (existing patterns)
3.**Constraint Reframing**: Reliability requirement actually means "eventual consistency with retries"
4.**Simplification**: Batch processing acceptable for non-urgent notifications
### Solution Architecture-**Urgent notifications** (<100ms): Dedicated service (5% of traffic)
-**Standard notifications**: Serverless functions + queue (95% of traffic)
-**Fallback**: Retry queue with exponential backoff
-**Monitoring**: Latency and error tracking for each type
### Cognitive Process Analysis-**Initial Impasse**: Overwhelmed by constraints (30 minutes stuck)
-**Breakthrough Method**: Whiteboard diagramming → pattern emergence
-**Critical Thinking**: Questioned each requirement's validity
-**Creative Synthesis**: Combined approaches rather than choosing one
### Performance Metrics-**Design Quality**: 8/10 (meets all requirements, elegant compromise)
-**Cognitive Effort**: High (complex trade-off analysis)
-**Time Efficiency**: Good (8 hours for complex problem)
-**Solution Novelty**: Medium (adapted existing patterns)
### Improvement Opportunities1.**Faster Pattern Recognition**: Study more system design patterns
2.**Better Constraint Analysis**: Formalize requirement prioritization
3.**Reduced Overthinking**: Set timebox for decision making
4.**Collaborative Thinking**: Involve others earlier for perspective
---
Bias Identification & Correction
Append to .learnings/cognition/BIASES.md:
## [BIAS-YYYYMMDD-001] Confirmation Bias in Project Estimation**Identified**: 2026-03-12T14:30:00Z
**Bias Type**: Confirmation Bias
**Context**: Software project timeline estimation
**Impact**: Moderate (2-week underestimation)
### Bias Manifestation-**Situation**: Estimating new feature development time
-**Behavior**: Sought evidence supporting optimistic timeline
-**Ignored**: Previous similar projects that took longer
-**Result**: 4-week estimate (actual likely 6 weeks)
### Detection Process1.**Trigger**: Felt too confident about estimate
2.**Check**: Asked "What evidence contradicts this?"
3.**Discovery**: Found 3 similar past projects averaged 6 weeks
4.**Recognition**: Realized seeking confirming evidence only
### Correction Applied1.**Forced Consideration**: Listed all past similar projects
2.**Outsider View**: Asked "What would I estimate for someone else?"
3.**Pre-mortem**: Imagined project failed, identified causes
4.**Adjustment**: Revised to 6 weeks with risk buffer
### Root Cause Analysis-**Motivation**: Wanted to please stakeholders with fast timeline
-**Pattern**: Recurring in estimation situations (3rd instance this year)
-**Environment**: Pressure to deliver quickly, reward for optimism
-**Cognitive Style**: Prefers action over caution
### Prevention Strategy1.**Checklist**: Always review past similar projects before estimating
2.**Devil's Advocate**: Assign someone to challenge optimistic estimates
3.**Buffer Rule**: Add 30% to initial optimistic estimate
4.**Calendar Review**: Monthly review of estimates vs. actuals
### Bias Strength Assessment-**Before Correction**: 8/10 (strong bias influence)
-**After Correction**: 3/10 (minimal residual influence)
-**Improvement**: 5-point reduction through structured process
-**Durability**: Expected to last 2-3 months before reinforcement needed
### Related Biases to Monitor-**Planning Fallacy**: Often co-occurs with confirmation bias
-**Optimism Bias**: Similar root in underestimating difficulties
-**Anchoring**: Initial estimate anchors subsequent thinking
---
Incorporate cognitive techniques into daily work/life
Regular bias checks in important decisions
Quarterly reassessment of cognitive fitness
Continuous refinement of thinking strategies
Scientific Foundation
Based on:
Dual Process Theory (Kahneman): System 1 vs. System 2 thinking
Cognitive Bias Research (Tversky & Kahneman): Heuristics and biases
Working Memory Model (Baddeley): Cognitive architecture
Deliberate Practice (Ericsson): Expertise development
Metacognition Research (Flavell): Thinking about thinking
Integration Note: This skill provides the thinking toolkit for other self-improving skills, ensuring decisions and problem-solving are based on clear, bias-aware cognition rather than intuition or habit alone.
