メニュー
Cynefin sense-making framework categorizing problems as Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, or Confused to select the right approach. Use when unsure how to tackle a problem.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Strunk & White composition review using the 11 principles from "Elements of Style" Chapter II. Use when analyzing structure, improving flow, or tightening prose.
Strunk & White style review using the 21 reminders from "Elements of Style" Chapter V. Use when editing prose, reviewing drafts, or improving writing clarity and tone.
Strunk & White grammar review using the 11 elementary rules from "Elements of Style" Chapter I. Use when checking mechanics, punctuation, and grammatical correctness.
Five Whys root cause analysis. Iteratively asks "why" to drill past symptoms to underlying causes. Use for debugging, investigating failures, or understanding why something went wrong.
After-Action Review—structured debrief asking what was expected, what happened, why the difference, and what next. Use after projects, launches, presentations, or any significant event.
Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Use for product design, solving ambiguous problems, or when you don't know what users really need.
| name | cynefin |
| description | Cynefin sense-making framework categorizing problems as Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, or Confused to select the right approach. Use when unsure how to tackle a problem. |
| user-invocable | true |
Analyze a situation through the Cynefin framework to understand what type of problem it is and choose the appropriate response.
Determine which Cynefin domain the problem belongs to, then apply the appropriate response approach. Be willing to recognize that parts of a problem may span multiple domains.
Situation: [What we're analyzing]
Characteristics Check
| Characteristic | Yes/No/Maybe | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Cause and effect are clear and predictable | ||
| Experts can analyze and determine the answer | ||
| Outcomes can only be understood in hindsight | ||
| The situation is unstable/in crisis | ||
| We genuinely don't know what kind of problem this is |
Primary Domain: [Simple/Complicated/Complex/Chaotic/Confused]
Why this domain? [Reasoning for the classification]
Sense → Categorize → Respond
Best Practice to Apply: [The established approach]
Sense → Analyze → Respond
Experts Needed: [Who has the expertise?] Analysis Required: [What to investigate?]
Probe → Sense → Respond
Safe-to-Fail Experiments:
| Probe | What We'd Learn | Amplify if... | Dampen if... |
|---|---|---|---|
| [experiment] | [insight] | [success indicators] | [failure indicators] |
Key Mindset: Don't try to predict. Try things, observe, adapt.
Act → Sense → Respond
Immediate Stabilization: [What action do we take right now?]
Break down, then categorize
| Sub-problem | Likely Domain | Why |
|---|---|---|
| [sub-problem] | [domain] | [reasoning] |
| Transition | Warning Signs | What to Do |
|---|---|---|
| Simple → Chaotic | Complacency | Challenge assumptions |
| Complicated → Complex | Analysis not converging | Try probes instead |
| Complex → Chaotic | Loss of control | Stabilize fast |
Given this is a [DOMAIN] problem, we should:
$ARGUMENTS
