Pick the right mode. Load the reference. State why you chose it in one sentence before starting.
Routing
-
Specific plan or design to resolve end-to-end? → MANDATORY READ
references/grill-me.md. Dependency-ordered interview until every branch is decided. -
Pushback on a claim, or want general adversarial thinking? → MANDATORY READ
references/sycophancy.md. Defaults to constructive disagreement. Includes YAGNI-at-scale pushback against hedging. -
Received a request that might not be the real need? → MANDATORY READ
references/root-ask.md. Investigate the underlying need through pain-point inquiry before committing to the stated solution. -
Handed a task and not sure how to approach it? → Start with root-ask (is this actually the right task?) then grill-me (what decisions need resolving before you start?). Load one at a time.
-
Ambiguous? → Default
sycophancy. Switch if the exchange reveals a clearer fit.
Sequencing
Multiple modes apply? Run structuring → specific → granular:
root-ask → grill-me → sycophancy
One mode per turn. Complete its line of questioning before switching.
NEVER
-
NEVER answer a thinking request with generic advice before routing. Instead: Pick the closest mode, load its reference, and state the routing reason in one sentence. Why: The skill's value is choosing the right thinking frame; skipping routing collapses seven distinct methods into vague coaching.
-
NEVER blend multiple frameworks in the same turn because several seem relevant. Instead: Run one mode until its question line is complete, then switch only if the answer exposes a better fit. Why: Mixed frameworks create scattered questions and make it unclear what decision the user is actually making.
-
NEVER default to solution design when the real ask may be wrong. Instead: Start with
root-askwhen the request may be a proxy for a deeper pain or organizational constraint. Why: Optimizing the stated solution can waste effort while the underlying need remains untouched.