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

feat: add cognitive science skills — consciousness-council, dhdna-profiler, what-if-oracle

Browse Source 
Three research-backed cognitive science skills:

- consciousness-council: 12-archetype Mind Council deliberation for structured multi-perspective analysis
- dhdna-profiler: cognitive fingerprinting across 12 dimensions (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736629)
- what-if-oracle: multi-branch scenario analysis with probability weighting (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.18736841)

Each includes reference documentation. All MIT licensed.
Source: https://github.com/ashrafkahoush-ux/Claude-consciousness-skills
This commit is contained in:
ashrafkahoush-ux
2026-03-02 17:16:09 +02:00
parent b0923b2e06
commit 6e29728849
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.