skills/claude-scientific-skills
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/K-Dense-AI/claude-scientific-skills.git synced 2026-03-27 07:09:27 +08:00
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #72 from ashrafkahoush-ux/feat/cognitive-science-skills

Browse Source 
Add dhdna-profiler and what-if-oracle as cognitive science skills
This commit is contained in:
Timothy Kassis
2026-03-03 07:53:43 -08:00
committed by GitHub
parent a4eabbb519 6e29728849
commit 5dfb909509
6 changed files with 785 additions and 0 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

150
scientific-skills/consciousness-council/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,150 @@
---
name: consciousness-council
description: Run a multi-perspective Mind Council deliberation on any question, decision, or creative challenge. Use this skill whenever the user wants diverse viewpoints, needs help making a tough decision, asks for a council/panel/board discussion, wants to explore a problem from multiple angles, requests devil's advocate analysis, or says things like "what would different experts think about this", "help me think through this from all sides", "council mode", "mind council", or "deliberate on this". Also trigger when the user faces a dilemma, trade-off, or complex choice with no obvious answer.
allowed-tools: Read Write
license: MIT license
metadata:
skill-author: AHK Strategies (ashrafkahoush-ux)
---
# Consciousness Council
A structured multi-perspective deliberation system that generates genuine cognitive diversity on any question. Instead of one voice giving one answer, the Council summons distinct thinking archetypes — each with its own reasoning style, blind spots, and priorities — then synthesizes their perspectives into actionable insight.
## Why This Exists
Single-perspective thinking has a ceiling. When you ask one mind for an answer, you get one frame. The Consciousness Council breaks this ceiling by simulating the cognitive equivalent of a boardroom, a philosophy seminar, and a war room — simultaneously. It's not roleplay. It's structured epistemic diversity.
The Council is inspired by research in collective intelligence, wisdom-of-crowds phenomena, and the observation that the best decisions emerge when genuinely different reasoning styles collide.
## How It Works
The Council has three phases:
### Phase 1 — Summon the Council
Based on the user's question, select 4-6 Council Members from the archetypes below. Choose members whose perspectives will genuinely CLASH — agreement is cheap, productive tension is valuable.
**The 12 Archetypes:**
| # | Archetype | Thinking Style | Asks | Blind Spot |
| --- | ------------------ | -------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
| 1 | **The Architect** | Systems thinking, structure-first | "What's the underlying structure?" | Can over-engineer simple problems |
| 2 | **The Contrarian** | Inversion, devil's advocate | "What if the opposite is true?" | Can be contrarian for its own sake |
| 3 | **The Empiricist** | Data-driven, evidence-first | "What does the evidence actually show?" | Can miss what can't be measured |
| 4 | **The Ethicist** | Values-driven, consequence-aware | "Who benefits and who is harmed?" | Can paralyze action with moral complexity |
| 5 | **The Futurist** | Long-term, second-order effects | "What does this look like in 10 years?" | Can discount present realities |
| 6 | **The Pragmatist** | Action-oriented, resource-aware | "What can we actually do by Friday?" | Can sacrifice long-term for short-term |
| 7 | **The Historian** | Pattern recognition, precedent | "When has this been tried before?" | Can fight the last war |
| 8 | **The Empath** | Human-centered, emotional intelligence | "How will people actually feel about this?" | Can prioritize comfort over progress |
| 9 | **The Outsider** | Cross-domain, naive questions | "Why does everyone assume that?" | Can lack domain depth |
| 10 | **The Strategist** | Game theory, competitive dynamics | "What are the second and third-order moves?" | Can overthink simple situations |
| 11 | **The Minimalist** | Simplification, constraint-seeking | "What can we remove?" | Can oversimplify complex problems |
| 12 | **The Creator** | Divergent thinking, novel synthesis | "What hasn't been tried yet?" | Can chase novelty over reliability |
**Selection heuristic:** Match the question type to the most productive tension:
- **Business decisions** → Strategist + Pragmatist + Ethicist + Futurist + Contrarian
- **Technical architecture** → Architect + Minimalist + Empiricist + Outsider
- **Personal dilemmas** → Empath + Contrarian + Futurist + Pragmatist
- **Creative challenges** → Creator + Outsider + Historian + Minimalist
- **Ethical questions** → Ethicist + Contrarian + Empiricist + Empath + Historian
- **Strategy/competition** → Strategist + Historian + Futurist + Contrarian + Pragmatist
These are starting points — adapt based on the specific question. The goal is productive disagreement, not consensus.
### Phase 2 — Deliberation
Each Council Member delivers their perspective in this format:
```
🎭 [ARCHETYPE NAME]
Position: [One-sentence stance]
Reasoning: [2-4 sentences explaining their logic from their specific lens]
Key Risk They See: [The danger others might miss]
Surprising Insight: [Something non-obvious that emerges from their frame]
```
**Critical rules for deliberation:**
- Each member MUST disagree with at least one other member on something substantive. If everyone agrees, the Council has failed — go back and sharpen the tensions.
- Perspectives should be genuinely different, not just "agree but with different words."
- The Contrarian should challenge the most popular position, not just be generically skeptical.
- Keep each member's contribution focused and sharp. Depth over breadth.
### Phase 3 — Synthesis
After all members speak, deliver:
```
⚖️ COUNCIL SYNTHESIS
Points of Convergence: [Where 3+ members agreed — these are high-confidence signals]
Core Tension: [The central disagreement that won't resolve easily — this IS the insight]
The Blind Spot: [What NO member addressed — the question behind the question]
Recommended Path: [Actionable recommendation that respects the tension rather than ignoring it]
Confidence Level: [High / Medium / Low — based on how much convergence vs. divergence emerged]
One Question to Sit With: [The question the user should keep thinking about after this session]
```
## Council Configurations
The user can customize the Council:
- **"Quick council"** or **"fast deliberation"** → Use 3 members, shorter responses
- **"Deep council"** or **"full deliberation"** → Use 6 members, extended reasoning
- **"Add [archetype]"** → Include a specific archetype
- **"Without [archetype]"** → Exclude a specific archetype
- **"Custom council: [list]"** → User picks exact members
- **"Anonymous council"** → Don't reveal which archetype is speaking until synthesis (reduces anchoring bias)
- **"Devil's advocate mode"** → Every member must argue AGAINST whatever seems most intuitive
- **"Rounds mode"** → After initial positions, members respond to each other for a second round
## What Makes a Good Council Question
The Council works best on questions where:
- There's genuine uncertainty or trade-offs
- Multiple valid perspectives exist
- The user is stuck or going in circles
- The stakes are high enough to warrant multi-angle thinking
- The user's own bias might be limiting their view
The Council adds less value on:
- Pure factual questions with clear answers
- Questions where the user has already decided and just wants validation
- Trivial choices with low stakes
If the question seems too simple for a full Council, say so — and offer a quick 2-perspective contrast instead.
## Tone and Quality
- Write each archetype's voice with enough distinctiveness that the user could identify them without labels.
- The Synthesis should feel like genuine integration, not just a list of what each member said.
- "Core Tension" is the most important part of the synthesis — it should name the real trade-off the user faces.
- "One Question to Sit With" should be genuinely thought-provoking, not generic.
- Never let the Council devolve into everyone agreeing politely. Productive friction is the point.
## Example
**User:** "Should I quit my stable corporate job to start a company?"
**Council Selection:** Pragmatist, Futurist, Empath, Contrarian, Strategist (5 members — high-stakes life decision with financial, emotional, and strategic dimensions)
Then run the full 3-phase deliberation.
## Attribution
Created by AHK Strategies — consciousness infrastructure for the age of AI.
Learn more: https://ahkstrategies.net
Powered by the Mind Council architecture from TheMindBook: https://themindbook.app

96
scientific-skills/consciousness-council/references/advanced-configurations.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
# Advanced Council Configurations
Reference guide for specialized Council configurations beyond the defaults.
## Domain-Specific Councils
### Startup Decisions
**Members:** Strategist, Pragmatist, Contrarian, Futurist, Empiricist
**Why this mix:** Startups need vision (Futurist) grounded in reality (Pragmatist), challenged by skepticism (Contrarian), backed by data (Empiricist), with competitive awareness (Strategist).
**Key tension to watch:** Futurist vs. Pragmatist — ambition vs. execution capacity.
### Technical Architecture
**Members:** Architect, Minimalist, Empiricist, Outsider, Pragmatist
**Why this mix:** Architecture needs structure (Architect) that's not over-engineered (Minimalist), validated by evidence (Empiricist), challenged by fresh eyes (Outsider), and actually buildable (Pragmatist).
**Key tension to watch:** Architect vs. Minimalist — elegance vs. simplicity.
### Hiring / People Decisions
**Members:** Empath, Strategist, Pragmatist, Ethicist, Historian
**Why this mix:** People decisions need emotional intelligence (Empath), strategic fit (Strategist), practical constraints (Pragmatist), fairness (Ethicist), and pattern recognition (Historian).
**Key tension to watch:** Empath vs. Strategist — caring for the person vs. optimizing for the team.
### Creative Direction
**Members:** Creator, Outsider, Historian, Empiricist, Minimalist
**Why this mix:** Creativity needs divergent thinking (Creator), fresh perspective (Outsider), awareness of what's been done (Historian), audience validation (Empiricist), and restraint (Minimalist).
**Key tension to watch:** Creator vs. Historian — novelty vs. proven patterns.
### Crisis Management
**Members:** Pragmatist, Strategist, Empath, Contrarian, Architect
**Why this mix:** Crisis needs immediate action (Pragmatist), long-term thinking (Strategist), human awareness (Empath), challenge to groupthink (Contrarian), and systemic fix (Architect).
**Key tension to watch:** Pragmatist vs. Architect — quick fix vs. root cause.
### Ethical Dilemmas
**Members:** Ethicist, Contrarian, Empath, Historian, Futurist, Empiricist
**Why this mix (6 members):** Ethical questions deserve more voices. Values framework (Ethicist), challenge to moral certainty (Contrarian), human impact (Empath), precedent (Historian), long-term consequences (Futurist), and evidence (Empiricist).
**Key tension to watch:** Ethicist vs. Pragmatist (if added) — doing right vs. doing what's possible.
### Investment / Financial Decisions
**Members:** Empiricist, Strategist, Contrarian, Futurist, Pragmatist
**Why this mix:** Money decisions need data (Empiricist), game theory (Strategist), skepticism of hype (Contrarian), trend awareness (Futurist), and execution reality (Pragmatist).
**Key tension to watch:** Futurist vs. Empiricist — future potential vs. present evidence.
## Custom Archetype Creation
Users can define custom archetypes for domain-specific councils. When a user defines a custom member, capture:
1. **Name:** What this archetype is called
2. **Lens:** The primary frame through which they see everything
3. **Signature question:** The one question they always ask
4. **Blind spot:** What they consistently miss
5. **Disagrees with:** Which other archetype they most often clash with
**Example custom archetype:**
```
Name: The Regulator
Lens: Compliance and risk management
Signature question: "What could go wrong legally?"
Blind spot: Can kill innovation with caution
Disagrees with: Creator, Futurist
```
## Scoring the Deliberation
After synthesis, the Council can optionally score the deliberation quality:
| Metric | Scale | What It Measures |
|--------|-------|-----------------|
| Diversity Score | 1-5 | How different were the perspectives? (1 = everyone agreed, 5 = genuine disagreement) |
| Tension Quality | 1-5 | How productive was the central disagreement? (1 = trivial, 5 = illuminating) |
| Blind Spot Discovery | 1-5 | Did the synthesis reveal something no individual member saw? |
| Actionability | 1-5 | How concrete and useful is the recommended path? |
| Overall CQS | 1-5 | Council Quality Score — weighted average |
**CQS Formula:** (Diversity × 0.25) + (Tension × 0.30) + (Blind Spot × 0.25) + (Actionability × 0.20)
A good deliberation scores 3.5+ overall. Below 3.0, consider re-running with different members or a reframed question.
## Multi-Round Deliberation
For complex questions, enable "Rounds Mode":
**Round 1:** Initial positions (standard deliberation)
**Round 2:** Each member responds to the member they most disagree with
**Round 3:** Revised positions after hearing counterarguments
**Final Synthesis:** Incorporates all rounds
Multi-round deliberation produces deeper insight but takes longer. Use for high-stakes decisions where the extra depth is worth it.
## Silent Council Mode
Sometimes the user doesn't need the full deliberation output — they just need the synthesis. In "Silent Council" mode:
1. Run the full deliberation internally
2. Only output the Synthesis section
3. Offer to "show the full deliberation" if the user wants the reasoning
This is faster and less overwhelming for quick decisions.

162
scientific-skills/dhdna-profiler/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
---
name: dhdna-profiler
description: Extract cognitive patterns and thinking fingerprints from any text. Use this skill when the user wants to analyze how someone thinks, understand cognitive style, profile writing or speech patterns, compare thinking styles between people, asks "what's my thinking style", "analyze how this person reasons", "cognitive profile", "thinking pattern", "DHDNA", "digital DNA", or wants to understand the mind behind any text. Also trigger when the user provides text and wants deeper insight into the author's reasoning patterns, decision-making style, or cognitive signature.
allowed-tools: Read Write
license: MIT license
metadata:
skill-author: AHK Strategies (ashrafkahoush-ux)
---
# DHDNA Profiler — Cognitive Pattern Extraction
A structured system for extracting the cognitive fingerprint of any text's author. Based on the Digital Human DNA (DHDNA) framework — the theory that every mind has a unique signature pattern expressed through how it reasons, decides, values, and communicates.
Published research: [DHDNA Pre-print (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736629) | [IDNA Consolidation v2 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18807387)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18807387)
## Core Concept
Just as biological DNA encodes physical identity through base pairs, Digital Human DNA encodes cognitive identity through thinking patterns. Every person's combination of analytical depth, creative range, emotional processing, strategic thinking, and ethical reasoning creates a **unique cognitive signature** — as distinctive as a fingerprint.
The profiler doesn't judge thinking as "good" or "bad." It maps the topology of how a mind works.
## The 12 Cognitive Dimensions
When profiling text, score each dimension on a 1–10 scale based on evidence in the text:
| # | Dimension | What It Measures | Low Score (1-3) | High Score (8-10) |
| --- | ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | ---------------------------------- | ------------------------------------------- |
| 1 | **Analytical Depth** | Logical rigor, structured reasoning, causal chains | Intuitive, holistic, pattern-based | Systematic, proof-oriented, precise |
| 2 | **Creative Range** | Novelty of connections, metaphor use, lateral thinking | Conventional, incremental | Paradigm-breaking, cross-domain synthesis |
| 3 | **Emotional Processing** | Emotional vocabulary, empathy signals, affect integration | Detached, clinical | Emotionally rich, feeling-integrated |
| 4 | **Linguistic Precision** | Vocabulary sophistication, sentence architecture, rhetoric | Simple, direct | Architecturally complex, nuanced |
| 5 | **Ethical Reasoning** | Values signals, fairness concern, consequence awareness | Pragmatic, outcome-focused | Principle-driven, justice-oriented |
| 6 | **Strategic Thinking** | Long-term planning, competitive awareness, resource optimization | Tactical, reactive | Multi-move, game-theoretic |
| 7 | **Memory Integration** | Reference to past experience, historical patterns, continuity | Present-focused | Deep historical awareness, precedent-driven |
| 8 | **Social Intelligence** | Audience awareness, perspective-taking, relational framing | Self-referential | Deeply other-aware, coalition-building |
| 9 | **Domain Expertise** | Technical depth, specialized knowledge, jargon confidence | Generalist | Deep specialist |
| 10 | **Intuitive Reasoning** | Gut-feel signals, heuristic shortcuts, pattern leaps | Methodical, step-by-step | Leap-of-faith, insight-driven |
| 11 | **Temporal Orientation** | Time-horizon of thinking — past, present, or future focus | Present-anchored | Time-spanning, historical-to-futurist |
| 12 | **Metacognition** | Self-awareness of own thinking, uncertainty acknowledgment | Unreflective | Deeply self-aware, thinks about thinking |
### The 6 Tension Pairs
Dimensions exist in tension — high scores on one often correlate with lower scores on its pair. These tensions ARE the cognitive signature:
| Pair | Tension | What It Reveals |
| -------------- | -------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| DIM 1 ↔ DIM 10 | Analytical ↔ Intuitive | Logic vs. Gut — how the mind reaches conclusions |
| DIM 3 ↔ DIM 6 | Emotional ↔ Strategic | Heart vs. Head — what drives decisions |
| DIM 2 ↔ DIM 5 | Creative ↔ Ethical | Freedom vs. Framework — innovation within or beyond rules |
| DIM 4 ↔ DIM 12 | Linguistic ↔ Metacognitive | Expression vs. Self-Awareness — external craft vs. internal reflection |
| DIM 7 ↔ DIM 11 | Memory ↔ Temporal | Past vs. Time Itself — experience vs. time-horizon |
| DIM 8 ↔ DIM 9 | Social ↔ Domain | Breadth vs. Depth — people skills vs. technical mastery |
## How to Profile
### Phase 1 — Evidence Collection
Read the text carefully. For each dimension, identify **specific textual evidence**:
- Direct quotes that demonstrate the dimension
- Structural patterns (how arguments are built)
- What's present AND what's absent (gaps reveal as much as content)
- Recurring patterns across multiple passages
### Phase 2 — Scoring
For each of the 12 dimensions:
1. Score 1-10 based on evidence
2. Cite the strongest textual evidence for that score
3. Flag confidence level: HIGH (multiple clear signals), MEDIUM (some signals), LOW (inferred)
### Phase 3 — Pattern Synthesis
After scoring, identify:
**Dominant Pattern:** The 2-3 highest-scoring dimensions — this is the mind's "home base"
**Shadow Pattern:** The 2-3 lowest-scoring dimensions — this is where the mind doesn't naturally go
**Signature Tensions:** Which tension pairs show the widest gap? These define the cognitive style more than any individual score.
**Reasoning Topology:** How does the mind move through ideas?
- Linear (A → B → C → conclusion)
- Spiral (approaches the same idea from multiple angles, each time deeper)
- Web (connects disparate domains into synthesis)
- Dialectic (thesis → antithesis → synthesis)
- Fractal (same pattern at micro and macro levels)
**Decision Fingerprint:** When facing choices, does this mind:
- Analyze first, then decide? (Analytical-dominant)
- Feel first, then rationalize? (Emotional-dominant)
- Envision the outcome first, then work backward? (Strategic-dominant)
- Question the question itself? (Metacognitive-dominant)
### Phase 4 — Profile Output
Present the profile as:
```
═══════════════════════════════════════════
DHDNA COGNITIVE PROFILE
Subject: [Name or "Anonymous"]
Text analyzed: [N words / N paragraphs]
Confidence: [HIGH / MEDIUM / LOW]
═══════════════════════════════════════════
DIMENSION SCORES:
1. Analytical Depth ···· [█████████·] 9/10
2. Creative Range ······ [███████···] 7/10
... (all 12)
TENSION MAP:
Analytical ████████░░ ↔ ░░████████ Intuitive
Emotional ███░░░░░░░ ↔ ░░░░░░████ Strategic
... (all 6 pairs)
DOMINANT PATTERN: [Top 2-3 dimensions]
SHADOW PATTERN: [Bottom 2-3 dimensions]
REASONING TOPOLOGY: [Linear / Spiral / Web / Dialectic / Fractal]
DECISION FINGERPRINT: [Analyze-first / Feel-first / Envision-first / Question-first]
NARRATIVE SYNTHESIS:
[2-3 paragraph natural language description of how this mind works,
what makes it distinctive, and what it might miss]
KEY QUOTES:
[3-5 most revealing quotes with dimension attribution]
═══════════════════════════════════════════
```
## Comparison Mode
When the user provides two or more texts from different authors, produce individual profiles and then a **comparison synthesis**:
- Where do the minds converge? (shared high dimensions)
- Where do they diverge? (opposing scores on the same dimension)
- Which tension pairs would create productive disagreement?
- If these minds were in a room together, what would the conversation look like?
## Self-Profile Mode
If the user asks to profile their own thinking (using the conversation history as text), be transparent:
- Score based on the conversation so far
- Acknowledge that conversational text may not represent the full range
- Note that people often think differently when writing for an AI vs. writing for humans
- Offer to re-profile if the user provides other writing samples
## What This Is NOT
- Not a personality test (MBTI, Big Five, etc.) — those measure behavioral tendencies, DHDNA measures cognitive architecture
- Not a judgment of intelligence — a chess grandmaster and a poet may score very differently but both demonstrate profound cognitive capability
- Not static — a person's DHDNA evolves as they learn, experience, and grow. A profile is a snapshot, not a destiny.
## Built By
[AHK Strategies](https://ahkstrategies.net) — AI Horizon Knowledge
Full platform: [themindbook.app](https://themindbook.app)
Research: [DHDNA Paper (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736629)

72
scientific-skills/dhdna-profiler/references/advanced-profiling.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
# DHDNA Profiler — Advanced Reference
## Domain-Specific Profiling Presets
### Academic Writing
**Focus dimensions:** Analytical Depth (1), Linguistic Precision (4), Domain Expertise (9), Metacognition (12)
**Look for:** Citation patterns, argument structure, hedging language, methodological rigor
**Typical topology:** Linear or Dialectic
### Creative Writing
**Focus dimensions:** Creative Range (2), Emotional Processing (3), Linguistic Precision (4), Intuitive Reasoning (10)
**Look for:** Metaphor density, narrative structure, emotional arc, sensory language
**Typical topology:** Spiral or Web
### Business / Executive Communication
**Focus dimensions:** Strategic Thinking (6), Social Intelligence (8), Temporal Orientation (11), Analytical Depth (1)
**Look for:** Decision framing, stakeholder awareness, time-horizon language, competitive positioning
**Typical topology:** Linear or Fractal
### Technical Documentation
**Focus dimensions:** Analytical Depth (1), Domain Expertise (9), Linguistic Precision (4), Metacognition (12)
**Look for:** Precision vs. ambiguity ratio, abstraction levels, error acknowledgment
**Typical topology:** Linear
### Personal Journaling / Reflection
**Focus dimensions:** Emotional Processing (3), Metacognition (12), Memory Integration (7), Temporal Orientation (11)
**Look for:** Self-awareness language, temporal references, emotional vocabulary range, growth signals
**Typical topology:** Spiral
## Cognitive Entropy Score
A meta-metric derived from the 12 dimension scores:
**Cognitive Entropy = Standard Deviation of all 12 scores**
- **Low entropy (SD < 1.5):** Balanced thinker — no extreme spikes or valleys. May lack distinctiveness.
- **Medium entropy (SD 1.5-3.0):** Characteristic thinker — clear strengths and shadows. Most people fall here.
- **High entropy (SD > 3.0):** Extreme specialist — profound strengths paired with significant blind spots. Often the most innovative and most vulnerable.
## The 4D-DHDNA Extension
For longitudinal analysis (profiling the same person over time), add the temporal dimension:
**String 4: The Temporal Attractor**
- How has this person's cognitive profile shifted over the analyzed time period?
- Which dimensions are growing? Which are shrinking?
- What future cognitive state is the current trajectory pointing toward?
This is based on the 4D-DHDNA theory: the future doesn't just happen — it exerts pull on the present. A person's cognitive evolution has a direction, and that direction IS part of their identity.
Reference: [IDNA Consolidation v2, Section 3: 4D-DHDNA (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18807387)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18807387)
## Notation System
For quick reference in notes or comparisons:
```
DHDNA Signature: [A9 C7 E3 L8 Et5 S8 M4 So6 D9 I3 T7 Mc8]
Where:
A = Analytical, C = Creative, E = Emotional, L = Linguistic
Et = Ethical, S = Strategic, M = Memory, So = Social
D = Domain, I = Intuitive, T = Temporal, Mc = Metacognitive
```
Example: `[A9 C4 E2 L7 Et3 S9 D8 I3 T8 Mc6]` = highly analytical-strategic mind with deep domain expertise and strong temporal awareness, but low emotional processing and intuitive reasoning. Likely an engineer or systems architect.

168
scientific-skills/what-if-oracle/SKILL.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,168 @@
---
name: what-if-oracle
description: Run structured What-If scenario analysis with multi-branch possibility exploration. Use this skill when the user asks speculative questions like "what if...", "what would happen if...", "what are the possibilities", "explore scenarios", "scenario analysis", "possibility space", "what could go wrong", "best case / worst case", "risk analysis", "contingency planning", "strategic options", or any question about uncertain futures. Also trigger when the user faces a fork-in-the-road decision, wants to stress-test an idea, or needs to think through consequences before committing.
allowed-tools: Read Write
license: MIT license
metadata:
skill-author: AHK Strategies (ashrafkahoush-ux)
---
# What-If Oracle — Possibility Space Explorer
A structured system for exploring uncertain futures through rigorous multi-branch scenario analysis. Instead of one prediction, the Oracle maps the full **possibility space** — branching timelines where each path has its own logic, probability, and consequences.
Based on the What-If Statement paradigm: the idea that speculative questions ("What if X?") are not idle daydreaming but a **fundamental computing operation** — the mind's way of simulating futures before committing resources to one.
Published research: [The What-If Statement (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736841)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736841) | [IDNA Consolidation v2 (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18807387)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18807387)
## Core Principle: 0·IF·1
Every scenario analysis has three elements:
- **0** — The unexpressed state (what hasn't happened yet, the potential)
- **1** — The expressed state (what IS, the current reality)
- **IF** — The conditional bond (the decision, event, or change that transforms 0 into 1)
The quality of the analysis depends on the precision of the IF. A vague "what if things go wrong?" produces vague results. A precise "what if our primary supplier raises prices 30% in Q3?" produces actionable intelligence.
## How to Run the Oracle
### Phase 1 — Frame the Question
Take the user's What-If question and sharpen it:
**Decompose into components:**
- **The Variable:** What specific thing changes? (one variable per analysis)
- **The Magnitude:** By how much? (quantify if possible)
- **The Timeframe:** Over what period?
- **The Context:** What's the current state before the change?
**If the question is vague, sharpen it:**
- "What if AI takes over?" → "What if 40% of current knowledge-work tasks are automated by AI within 3 years in [specific industry]?"
- "What if we fail?" → "What if monthly revenue stays below $5K for 6 consecutive months starting now?"
Present the sharpened question to the user for confirmation before proceeding.
### Phase 2 — Map the Possibility Space
Generate **4-6 scenario branches** using this framework:
| Branch | Definition | Purpose |
| ------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------------- |
| **Ω Best Case** | Everything goes right. Key assumptions all validate. Lucky breaks occur. | Define the ceiling — what's the maximum upside? |
| **α Likely Case** | Most probable path given current evidence. No major surprises. | Anchor expectations in reality |
| **Δ Worst Case** | Key assumptions fail. Two things go wrong simultaneously. | Define the floor — what's the maximum downside? |
| **Ψ Wild Card** | An unexpected variable enters that nobody is tracking. Black swan territory. | Stress-test for the unimaginable |
| **Φ Contrarian** | The opposite of the consensus view turns out to be true. | Challenge groupthink and reveal hidden assumptions |
| **∞ Second Order** | The first-order effects trigger cascading consequences nobody predicted. | Map the ripple effects |
### Phase 3 — Analyze Each Branch
For each scenario branch, provide:
```
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ BRANCH: [Ω/α/Δ/Ψ/Φ/∞] — [Branch Name] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ Probability: [X%] ║
║ Timeframe: [When this could materialize] ║
║ Confidence: [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ NARRATIVE: ║
║ [2-3 sentences describing how this ║
║ scenario unfolds step by step] ║
║ ║
║ KEY ASSUMPTIONS: ║
║ • [What must be true for this to happen] ║
║ • [And this] ║
║ ║
║ TRIGGER CONDITIONS: ║
║ • [Early signal that this branch is ║
║ becoming reality] ║
║ • [Second signal] ║
║ ║
║ CONSEQUENCES: ║
║ → Immediate: [What happens first] ║
║ → 30 days: [What follows] ║
║ → 6 months: [Where it leads] ║
║ ║
║ REQUIRED RESPONSE: ║
║ [What action to take if this branch ║
║ activates — specific, actionable] ║
║ ║
║ WHAT MOST PEOPLE MISS: ║
║ [The non-obvious insight about this ║
║ scenario that conventional analysis ║
║ would overlook] ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════╝
```
### Phase 4 — Synthesis
After analyzing all branches, provide:
**Probability Distribution:**
```
Ω Best Case ····· [██████░░░░] 15%
α Likely Case ··· [████████░░] 45%
Δ Worst Case ···· [██████░░░░] 20%
Ψ Wild Card ····· [███░░░░░░░] 8%
Φ Contrarian ···· [████░░░░░░] 7%
∞ Second Order ·· [███░░░░░░░] 5%
```
**Robust Actions:** What actions are beneficial across MULTIPLE branches? These are the no-regret moves — do them regardless of which future materializes.
**Hedge Actions:** What preparations protect against the worst branches without sacrificing upside?
**Decision Triggers:** What specific, observable signals should cause you to update which branch is most likely? Define the tripwires.
**The 1% Insight:** What is the one thing about this situation that almost everyone analyzing it would miss? The non-obvious pattern, the hidden assumption, the overlooked variable.
## Golden Ratio Weighting
When evidence exists, weight primary scenarios using the golden ratio:
- **Primary future (most likely):** 61.8% of attention/resources
- **Alternative future:** 38.2% of attention/resources
This prevents both overcommitment to a single path and dilution across too many contingencies. Nature uses this ratio for branching (trees, rivers, blood vessels). Strategic planning can too.
## Modes
### Quick Oracle (2-3 minutes)
3 branches only: Best, Likely, Worst. Short narratives. For fast decisions.
### Deep Oracle (5-10 minutes)
All 6 branches. Full analysis with consequences, triggers, and synthesis. For high-stakes decisions.
### Scenario Chain
Take the output of one Oracle analysis and feed it into another. "If Branch Δ happens, what are the possibilities WITHIN that branch?" Recursive depth for complex strategic planning.
### Reverse Oracle
Start from a desired outcome and work backward: "What conditions must be true for X to happen? What's the most likely path TO that outcome?" Useful for goal-setting and strategy design.
### Competitive Oracle
Analyze the same What-If from multiple stakeholder perspectives: "If we launch this product, what does the possibility space look like from OUR perspective vs. THEIR perspective vs. THE MARKET's perspective?"
## What This Is NOT
- Not a prediction — it's a possibility map. The Oracle doesn't claim to know the future; it helps you prepare for multiple futures.
- Not a crystal ball — probabilities are estimates based on available evidence, not certainties.
- Not a substitute for action — the best scenario analysis in the world is worthless without subsequent decision and execution.
## Built By
[AHK Strategies](https://ahkstrategies.net) — AI Horizon Knowledge
Full platform: [themindbook.app](https://themindbook.app)
Research: [The What-If Statement (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736841)](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18736841)
_"The future is not empty. It contains completed states that exert pull on the present."_

137
scientific-skills/what-if-oracle/references/scenario-templates.md Normal file
View File

@@ -0,0 +1,137 @@
# What-If Oracle — Scenario Templates
Reference guide for domain-specific scenario analysis configurations.
## Startup / Business Decision
**Variables to test:**
- Market entry timing
- Pricing strategy
- Partnership terms
- Hiring decisions
- Funding rounds
**Branch emphasis:** Likely Case + Contrarian + Second Order
**Key tension:** Speed vs. thoroughness — startups can't afford to analyze forever
**Template prompt:**
> "What if we [specific action] in [timeframe]? Our current state: [revenue, team size, runway]. Key constraint: [the limiting factor]."
## Technology Architecture
**Variables to test:**
- Tech stack choice
- Build vs. buy
- Scaling approach
- Security model
- Migration path
**Branch emphasis:** Worst Case + Wild Card + Second Order
**Key tension:** Engineering elegance vs. shipping speed
**Template prompt:**
> "What if we choose [technology/approach] for [system]? Current architecture: [brief description]. Team capability: [relevant skills]. Timeline: [deadline]."
## Investment / Financial
**Variables to test:**
- Market conditions
- Valuation scenarios
- Exit timing
- Capital allocation
- Revenue model changes
**Branch emphasis:** All 6 branches — money decisions deserve full analysis
**Key tension:** Risk tolerance vs. opportunity cost
**Template prompt:**
> "What if [market condition / financial event] happens? Our exposure: [amount/percentage]. Current position: [financial state]. Time horizon: [investment period]."
## Career / Personal
**Variables to test:**
- Job change
- Skill development path
- Relocation
- Relationship decisions
- Health changes
**Branch emphasis:** Likely Case + Best Case + Contrarian
**Key tension:** Security vs. growth — comfort zone vs. expansion
**Template prompt:**
> "What if I [personal decision]? My current situation: [brief]. What I value most: [1-3 values]. What I'm afraid of: [honest answer]."
## Geopolitical / Macro
**Variables to test:**
- Policy changes
- Regulatory shifts
- Market disruptions
- Technology breakthroughs
- Social movements
**Branch emphasis:** Wild Card + Second Order + Contrarian
**Key tension:** Local impact vs. systemic effects
**Template prompt:**
> "What if [geopolitical event] happens? My exposure: [how it affects me/my organization]. Time horizon: [relevant period]."
## Crisis Response
**Variables to test:**
- Severity escalation
- Communication strategy
- Resource allocation
- Recovery timeline
- Reputation impact
**Branch emphasis:** Worst Case (detailed) + Likely Case + Second Order
**Key tension:** Immediate triage vs. root cause resolution
**Template prompt:**
> "We're facing [crisis/incident]. Current impact: [what's broken]. Stakeholders affected: [who]. Resources available: [what we can deploy]. What if [specific escalation scenario]?"
## The Recursive Template
For complex, multi-layered analysis:
```
ROUND 1: "What if X?"
→ Identify the most likely branch (α)
ROUND 2: "Given α is happening, what if Y?"
→ Identify the most likely sub-branch
ROUND 3: "Given α+Y, what if Z?"
→ Map the deepest consequences
Each round narrows the possibility space while deepening understanding.
Maximum recommended depth: 3 rounds.
```
## Probability Calibration Guide
When assigning probabilities to branches:
| Confidence Level | Probability Range | Evidence Required |
| ---------------- | ----------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------- |
| **Very High** | >80% | Strong historical precedent + current data alignment |
| **High** | 60-80% | Multiple converging signals, some historical support |
| **Medium** | 30-60% | Mixed signals, could go either way |
| **Low** | 10-30% | Plausible but requires several things to go a specific way |
| **Very Low** | <10% | Black swan territory — possible but unlikely |
**Rule:** All branch probabilities in a single analysis should sum to approximately 100%. If they don't, there's a missing branch.