메뉴
Use when the same problem keeps recurring despite fixes, growth stalled with no obvious cause, or a quick fix made things worse—match it to a known structural pattern instead of re-diagnosing.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Use when a search or investigation could run indefinitely and you need a stopping rule. Set an explicit "good enough" threshold and stop at the first option that clears it.
Start with means, not goals; co-create with partners; leverage contingencies. Use for startup strategy, innovation projects, and uncertain/novel domains where planning is unreliable.
When a constraint is treated as fixed ("too expensive", "impossible", "always done this way"), ask whether it's physics or just convention, then rebuild from what's actually true.
Deciding what to build or why a feature isn't adopted. Reframe from features to the "job" users hire the product for — the progress they seek — to prioritize and position.
Use when a defect is selective (some endpoints/regions/users/times affected, not all) and the cause is unclear — map what IS vs IS-NOT affected; the boundary contrast points at the root cause.
Use when picking where to intervene in a system and tuning parameters keeps not sticking—rank candidate interventions by Meadows' hierarchy and choose the highest-leverage point you can move.
| name | thinking-archetypes |
| description | Use when the same problem keeps recurring despite fixes, growth stalled with no obvious cause, or a quick fix made things worse—match it to a known structural pattern instead of re-diagnosing. |
Systems archetypes (Peter Senge, "The Fifth Discipline") are recurring structural patterns. Like design patterns in software, once you recognize one you can predict where it leads and where to intervene. Most stubborn, recurring problems aren't unique—they're an instance of a known pattern, and the pattern names the leverage point.
Core Principle: A recurring problem usually has a structural pattern. Match the pattern and the intervention follows.
When the same problem keeps recurring despite multiple fixes:
If no archetype fits after a genuine look, don't force one — drop to thinking-systems and map from scratch. For a first-time one-off problem, just fix it.
Problem keeps recurring despite fixes? → match an archetype
Quick fix made it worse? → match an archetype
Growth hit an invisible ceiling? → match an archetype
Shared resource degrading? → match an archetype
thinking-systems instead. Archetypes are pattern-matching shortcuts for recurring structures; if the system is unfamiliar, map it first, then see if an archetype fits.thinking-leverage-points (Meadows' hierarchy). Archetypes name the structure; leverage-points tell you where in that structure to act for maximum effect.thinking-systems and map the actual structure from scratch.Match the symptom to the pattern; the Key Question points at the leverage.
| Archetype | Structure | Recognize it by | Key Question (leverage) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fixes That Fail | Quick fix relieves symptom but a delayed side effect makes it worse | "We fixed this last quarter, why is it back?"; the fix needs ever-larger doses | "What side effect will this fix create?" |
| Shifting the Burden | A symptomatic workaround is used instead of the fundamental fix, creating dependency | Permanent workarounds; "we know the real fix but have no time"; the real capability is atrophying | "What capability are we not building by leaning on this workaround?" |
| Limits to Growth | A reinforcing growth loop hits a balancing constraint | Strong growth that plateaued; more effort, diminishing returns; a resource maxed out | "What will limit us at 10x scale?" |
| Tragedy of the Commons | Each actor gains by using a shared resource; collective overuse depletes it | Shared CI/staging/cache/quota degrading; everyone optimizes locally; no clear owner | "Who owns the long-term health of this resource?" |
| Escalation | Two parties react to each other's moves in a competitive spiral | "They did X so we must do Y"; arms-race dynamics; each side feels defensive | "Can we change the game instead of playing it harder?" |
| Success to the Successful | Initial success grants more resources, compounding advantage and starving alternatives | Past success is the main predictor of new investment; experiments starved to feed the incumbent | "Are we starving future successes to feed current ones?" |
| Growth and Underinvestment | Demand grows toward a limit; capacity investment is delayed until performance degrades into crisis | Reactive investment after the incident; chronic "good enough for now" | "What fails if we grow 50% without adding capacity now?" |
thinking-systems.thinking-systems because none fit)"Structures of which we are unaware hold us prisoner. Once we can see them, they no longer have the same hold on us."
The pattern continues until someone sees it and changes the structure driving it—not the behaviors, but what produces them.