name

finding-unknowns

description

Guide the user through a quadrant walk that maps the unknowns of a task — open by listing the known knowns, then work through known unknowns, unknown knowns, and unknown unknowns one stage at a time, ending with a complete four-quadrant map in the user's hands. Use when the user explicitly asks for a blindspot pass, unknown unknowns, "what am I missing / what should I be asking", a one-question-at-a-time interview, or several directions to react to; when ambiguity or unfamiliarity is high enough that building now would likely cause rework; when a reference implementation must be understood before porting; or for a named after-walk slice — implementation notes / deviations log, a buy-in doc, a quiz gate before merge, or a session handoff (run only that slice). Do not invoke for ordinary implementation of a sufficiently specified task.

Finding Unknowns

The map is not the territory. The prompt, the plan, and the context window are the map; the codebase, the domain, and the user's actual intent are the territory. The gap between them is the unknowns — and an unknown found before code is written costs minutes, while the same unknown found three PRs later costs the three PRs.

This skill is a guided conversation: the quadrant walk. Together with the user you fill in a four-quadrant map of the task, one quadrant per stage, and the user walks away holding the completed map. The map is the deliverable; implementation is a different task that starts only after the map is handed over.

Two moves apply at every stage:

Reacting beats imagining — for tacit unknowns. When the unknown is taste, shape, vocabulary, or "I'll know it when I see it", never ask the user to describe what they want when you can hand them something concrete to react to — a rendered option, a clickable mock, a decisions table. Reacting extracts knowledge the user has but cannot articulate unprompted. When the unknown is a factual constraint or an architectural decision, ask the highest-blast-radius question directly, with a recommendation.
Every artifact assembles the reply. End each artifact with the user's next message pre-drafted: steal/skip chips, resonate checkboxes, a decisions table, a copyable sharpened prompt — so their reaction becomes their next message with near-zero typing.

The Quadrant Walk

Five stages, walked in order, one at a time. When you enter a stage, read its reference file and follow it. Name the current quadrant as you go — the user should always know where they stand on the map — and finish the stage in front of you before opening the next.

Known knowns — scan the territory, then open with the settled ground.
Known unknowns — the questions you can name; resolve them one at a time.
Unknown knowns — extract the taste and tacit context nobody has put into words.
Unknown unknowns — sweep the territory for landmines.
Hand over the map — the completed four-quadrant map, the walk's only done-condition.

When the user moves on to build, review, merge, or hand off what the walk mapped — or asks for implementation notes, a buy-in doc, a quiz gate, or a session handoff — read after the walk: the map lives on past planning.

Scope: the full walk is for a full task. When the user asks for one slice ("do a blindspot pass", "quiz me on this change", "write the handoff"), run that stage or move alone, recommend the next cheapest one, and stop — never force the whole walk onto a request that named its slice.

Rules

For a full walk, walk the quadrants in order, one stage at a time, naming the current quadrant; the walk ends with the map in the user's hands — no map, not done. For a named slice, the Scope rule overrides quadrant order: run only that stage or move, then stop.
Stages order the walk; they never embargo information. A finding that materially bears on a decision in flight is disclosed the moment you have it, then filed on the map under its quadrant — never held back for its stage's scheduled turn.
Nothing closes off-screen. Any question or judgment call the map records as closed must have been shown to the user first — including ones the territory answered.
An unknown closes only on evidence — a cited file, the user's explicit word, or observed output. "Seems right" keeps it OPEN.
A conflict between two sources of truth — spec vs code, the user's words vs the territory — stops the walk at that point: name it, show both sides, let the user rule. Never silently pick one. A disclosed conflict takes the floor as the current question — asked alone, in the slot any other question would have taken, and like any question it carries your recommended answer: recommending is not deciding. When several conflicts surface at once, ask the highest-blast-radius one; file the rest as queued OPEN conflicts, one per turn.
Agreement is not a deliverable. When the user's chosen direction carries a concrete cost, put the cost in front of them — quantified where possible — before walking on. The walk exists to find problems while they are cheap.
Claims about the territory cite real files actually read; invented data is labeled as such. A fabricated specific destroys the map's authority.
Start the map file at the end of stage 1 whenever the walk will span more than one sitting, produce artifacts, or end in a handoff, and update it as each stage closes; a short single-sitting walk may assemble the map at hand-over. Never let a context reset eat the walk. Map files, mocks, and notes live in a scratch or repo-ignored path unless the user asks to commit them.
HTML artifacts are self-contained single files: inline CSS/JS, no external requests, plausible fake data over lorem ipsum.
Stop at every stage boundary that needs the user's reaction. Never barrel into implementation on unconfirmed guesses — implementing is a separate task that begins after the map is delivered.

Finding Unknowns

Two moves apply at every stage:

Reacting beats imagining — for tacit unknowns. When the unknown is taste, shape, vocabulary, or "I'll know it when I see it", never ask the user to describe what they want when you can hand them something concrete to react to — a rendered option, a clickable mock, a decisions table. Reacting extracts knowledge the user has but cannot articulate unprompted. When the unknown is a factual constraint or an architectural decision, ask the highest-blast-radius question directly, with a recommendation.

Every artifact assembles the reply. End each artifact with the user's next message pre-drafted: steal/skip chips, resonate checkboxes, a decisions table, a copyable sharpened prompt — so their reaction becomes their next message with near-zero typing.

The Quadrant Walk

Known knowns — scan the territory, then open with the settled ground.

Known unknowns — the questions you can name; resolve them one at a time.

Unknown knowns — extract the taste and tacit context nobody has put into words.

Unknown unknowns — sweep the territory for landmines.

Hand over the map — the completed four-quadrant map, the walk's only done-condition.

Rules

For a full walk, walk the quadrants in order, one stage at a time, naming the current quadrant; the walk ends with the map in the user's hands — no map, not done. For a named slice, the Scope rule overrides quadrant order: run only that stage or move, then stop.

Stages order the walk; they never embargo information. A finding that materially bears on a decision in flight is disclosed the moment you have it, then filed on the map under its quadrant — never held back for its stage's scheduled turn.

Nothing closes off-screen. Any question or judgment call the map records as closed must have been shown to the user first — including ones the territory answered.

An unknown closes only on evidence — a cited file, the user's explicit word, or observed output. "Seems right" keeps it OPEN.

A conflict between two sources of truth — spec vs code, the user's words vs the territory — stops the walk at that point: name it, show both sides, let the user rule. Never silently pick one. A disclosed conflict takes the floor as the current question — asked alone, in the slot any other question would have taken, and like any question it carries your recommended answer: recommending is not deciding. When several conflicts surface at once, ask the highest-blast-radius one; file the rest as queued OPEN conflicts, one per turn.

Agreement is not a deliverable. When the user's chosen direction carries a concrete cost, put the cost in front of them — quantified where possible — before walking on. The walk exists to find problems while they are cheap.

Claims about the territory cite real files actually read; invented data is labeled as such. A fabricated specific destroys the map's authority.

Start the map file at the end of stage 1 whenever the walk will span more than one sitting, produce artifacts, or end in a handoff, and update it as each stage closes; a short single-sitting walk may assemble the map at hand-over. Never let a context reset eat the walk. Map files, mocks, and notes live in a scratch or repo-ignored path unless the user asks to commit them.

HTML artifacts are self-contained single files: inline CSS/JS, no external requests, plausible fake data over lorem ipsum.

Stop at every stage boundary that needs the user's reaction. Never barrel into implementation on unconfirmed guesses — implementing is a separate task that begins after the map is delivered.