Cc Thinking Skills plugin for Grok Build

Skills (25)

• thinking-bounded-rationality — Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.
• thinking-circle-of-competence — Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
• thinking-cynefin — When the right response mode is unclear, classify the cause-effect domain first; decompose disorder.
• thinking-effectuation — Under genuine uncertainty with no reliable forecast, inventory means, cap downside at affordable loss, act for commitments, and let goals emerge from controllable moves.
• thinking-first-principles — When a constraint is treated as fixed, separate physics from convention, keep only independently supported primitives, and rebuild the simplest solution that satisfies real constraints.
• thinking-five-whys-plus — When a fault is localized and the proximate cause is known but the systemic root is not, chain evidence-linked whys with a counterfactual stop and a countermeasure.
• thinking-jobs-to-be-done — Deciding what to build or why adoption fails. Recover the progress users hire a solution for under a circumstance, then rank by outcome and competing workarounds.
• thinking-kepner-tregoe — Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.
• thinking-lindy-effect — Use when longevity of a non-perishable option matters. Treat survival duration as a remaining-life prior, then check domain drift before favoring the proven.
• thinking-map-territory — When a claim, doc, test, metric, or assumption conflicts with observed behavior, stop theorizing from the map and verify the live code or data; let territory overrule.
• thinking-margin-of-safety — When provisioning, setting a limit, or committing an estimate under uncertainty, size a buffer to residual error and the cost of breach—not to the optimistic edge.
• thinking-model-combination — When one mental model leaves a material blind spot on a multi-domain or high-stakes problem, sequence complementary models with named roles and a conflict rule.
• thinking-model-router — When unsure which thinking skill fits, map domain and problem type, then return NONE or one primary skill by default (at most three complementary).
• thinking-ooda — Use under time pressure when the situation is still changing and you must act before certainty — cycle Observe→Orient→Decide→Act on ~70% confidence, then re-observe.
• thinking-opportunity-cost — Before committing scarce time, people, or money, name the best forgone use of those resources and the value delta of the chosen path versus that alternative.
• thinking-pre-mortem — Before committing to a plan or launch, assume it already failed and reason backward through concrete causes — convert failure paths into mitigations, gates, and stop checks.
• thinking-probabilistic — Use when forecasting, estimating, or sizing risk — anchor on base rates, give ranges, update prior→likelihood→posterior on evidence, and factor unmeasured quantities into order-of-magnitude bounds.
• thinking-red-team — For authorized security review of code, auth, or APIs you control, model the attacker, map the attack surface, and report only findings with a reproducible exploit path and verified mitigation.
• thinking-reversibility — Before heavy deliberation, classify the decision as cheap or costly to undo; decide two-way doors fast and stage one-way doors to preserve options.
• thinking-scientific-method — When a symptom has several plausible causes, rank falsifiable hypotheses and run the cheapest discriminating observation first; prefer least-assumptive survivors only after evidence fit.
• thinking-second-order — When a change has effects past the immediate fix—incentives, scale, feedback—trace consequence chains with timing and probability before committing.
• thinking-socratic — When a request is vague, assumption-laden, or "obvious," ask the few load-bearing questions that expose hidden requirements before building or committing.
• thinking-steel-manning — Before rejecting a proposal or reflexively agreeing, build the strongest faithful opposing case, state agreement conditions, then update or reaffirm.
• thinking-systems — When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.
• thinking-theory-of-constraints — When throughput or latency is pipeline-limited, identify the single binding constraint and exploit, subordinate, elevate, then recheck—ignore non-constraints.