agentleFS
deciqAIdeciqAI/knowledge-skills/cognitive-evolution-stages/SKILL.md

cognitive-evolution-stages

Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Activate when: user says 'I understand it but can't apply it,' 'how do I stop just copying other people's work,' 'I can adapt frameworks but can't create new ones,' 'why does my innovation always look like a remix,' or when someone's output is sophisticated adaptation that cannot generate genuinely novel solutions.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈5

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 0

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use AFTER [metacognition] to accurately self-locate.

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Check fit: "Pick one domain where you feel plateaued.

    line 31
  3. Distinctive:

    After 4 weeks: what can you now do that you could NOT do before?

    line 55
  4. Distinctive:

    Stop-rule: All activities Stage 2 for a month with no deliberate comparison = stagnation.

    line 56
  5. Distinctive:

    Every piece of work starts with "find an existing example and adapt it" — no deliberate comparative evaluation

    line 96

≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Cognitive Evolution Stages

Overview

Most learning models treat acquisition as the final destination. This framework describes it as the starting line of a five-stage process (5阶段11层级) ending in evolution — where Stage 5 output restarts the cycle at a higher level. The diagnostic power is identifying where someone is stuck and what specific transition would unblock them. The most consequential stall is Stage 2→3: from imitation to genuine understanding with deliberate trade-off thinking.

Use AFTER [metacognition] to accurately self-locate. Use BEFORE [first-principles] — first-principles at Stage 2 produces confident error. Complements [nine-level-cognitive-tower]: this maps the PROCESS of development; that maps the STATE.

When to Use

  • A developer, researcher, analyst, or creator produces sophisticated work but cannot generate genuinely novel solutions
  • A team's "innovation" combines existing approaches without comparative trade-off evaluation
  • A person has mastered Stage 2 and feels "something is missing" — cannot generate without a model to copy
  • A mentee executes instructions perfectly but cannot diagnose what is wrong with their own approach
  • When NOT to use: person lacks Stage 1 knowledge; block is motivational not developmental; Stage 2 imitation IS appropriate for a brand-new domain

Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)

  • Engine mode: user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.
  • Coach mode: user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → guide step by step.

In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.

  1. One-line what-it-is: "Five stages from knowing → copying → comparing trade-offs → creating new methods → self-correcting loop. Most people stall at Stage 2 because that's what gets rewarded."
  2. Check fit: "Pick one domain where you feel plateaued. What is it?"
  3. Elicit the real case: "Describe the last thing you produced there — did you start from an existing model or from the problem itself?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Map their work to the most honest stage. Ask: "What would Stage 3 look like — deliberately comparing 2-3 existing approaches and naming trade-offs before choosing?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Close: "If you reliably operated at Stage 3 in [domain], what would become possible that isn't now?"

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

The Process

Output artifact: Stage Map + Capability Gap Analysis + Deliberate Practice Design

StageCore behaviorTypical output
1. Acquire (know-that, analyze, research)Identifying and absorbing what existsLiterature reviews, fact compilations
2. Imitate (copy, adapt, fit-to-context)Reproducing and adapting existing approachesImplementations of known methods
3. Understand/Apply (compare, trade-off, innovate)Comparative evaluation and first genuine noveltyTrade-off analyses, novel applications
4. Create (new method, distill, elevate)Generating new methods and distilling principlesNew frameworks, original methodologies
5. Evolve (perceive→cognize→analyze→understand→evaluate→reflect)Self-correcting loop that restarts at higher levelMeta-frameworks, self-revising systems
  1. Label 3 specific recent outputs by stage based on actual behavior, not aspiration. Gate: rate your output.
  2. Describe current-stage behavior specifically enough that someone watching you work could confirm it. Gate: falsifiable.
  3. Name the ONE cognitive operation marking the Stage N→N+1 transition for your domain. Gate: nameable operation, not "think more creatively."
  4. Design deliberate practice: specific behavior, specific frequency, 4-week duration. Gate: not "read more."
  5. After 4 weeks: what can you now do that you could NOT do before? If no progress — wrong practice or Stage 1 gap?
  6. Stop-rule: All activities Stage 2 for a month with no deliberate comparison = stagnation. Do not call it "working efficiently."

Output template: Domain / Date / 3-output stage table / Median stage / Current behavior (falsifiable) / Next stage gap + key capability / Practice design / 4-week reassessment

→ Method in Action: Marie Curie's Scientific Development (1896-1911)

Evolution Stage Packs

Software Engineers: S1 reading docs → S2 adapting tutorials → S3 comparing architectures with explicit trade-offs → S4 designing novel abstractions → S5 identifying paradigm limits, proposing new directions.

Strategy & Product: S1 market research → S2 applying McKinsey frameworks / copying features → S3 naming which competitor bets NOT to make → S4 original positioning frameworks / new categories → S5 strategy that evaluates its own assumptions quarterly.

Contribution note: add domain-specific entries via pull request.

Applying It Well

  1. Stage 2 is necessary, not shameful — the problem is staying there past when Stage 3 is appropriate.
  2. Stage 2→3 requires deliberate documented comparison, not passive absorption of many examples.
  3. Stage 4 requires articulated Stage 3 as prerequisite — "I had an intuition" is often unconscious Stage 2.
  4. Stage 5 is a habit of systematic self-revision, not a level of permanent wisdom.
  5. Stages are domain-specific — Stage 4 in software + Stage 2 in strategy = Stage 2 in strategy.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md

Common Rationalizations

[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.

Fake moveReality
[D] "Adapting frameworks for 10 years — that's Stage 3."Extended Stage 2 with experience. Stage 3 requires explicit comparative evaluation, not time.
[D] "I create new things all the time — presentations, proposals."New outputs via existing methods = Stage 2. Stage 4 means the method itself is new.
[D] "I can see which approach is better intuitively — no need to compare formally."Confident Stage 2 pattern-matching. Stage 3 requires comparison explicit enough to be reviewed.
[D] "Stages kill creativity — innovation is about inspiration."Piaget and Bloom show the opposite: creative novelty requires structural prerequisites.
[D] "I'm in Stage 5 because I reflect on my work."Reflection ≠ Stage 5. Stage 5 requires systematic self-revision that changes future output.
[D] "I'll focus on Stage 3-4 in my next project — too busy now."Deferring = most common way to remain permanently at Stage 2.
→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure patternWhat went wrong and why

Red Flags

  • Every piece of work starts with "find an existing example and adapt it" — no deliberate comparative evaluation
  • You can describe Stage 3-4 but cannot point to any output of yours that exemplifies it
  • Your "innovations" are fully describable as combinations of named existing methods
  • You cannot articulate trade-offs of your approach — only that it works
  • Your deliberate practice is reading and watching, not comparative production

Verification

  • 3+ specific recent outputs labeled by stage, based on actual behavior not aspiration
  • Current-stage behavior described falsifiably — someone watching could confirm it
  • ONE cognitive operation named for the Stage N→N+1 transition in my domain
  • Deliberate practice specifies behavior, frequency, and duration
  • Stage 1 prerequisites identified for the target jump
  • 4-week evaluation criteria are behavioral: can or cannot do, not feel or don't feel
  • Checked the most common stall: am I at Stage 2 calling it Stage 3 because I modify rather than copy?

Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 253 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/cognitive-evolution-stages · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/cognitive-evolution-stages.json

Download now (ZIP)

Does it work?

Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.

No reviews yet

People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.

  • It worked
  • Partly
  • It didn't
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.

Your trail

Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.

Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.

Now do this for your own.

Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.