agentleFS
deciqAIdeciqAI/knowledge-skills/deliberate-practice/SKILL.md

deliberate-practice

Skill13 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub

Activate when: user says 'I've been doing this for years but I'm not getting better'; someone suspects a skill plateau despite continued effort; designing a learning program for a high-performance outcome; an organization reports high training hours but low skill transfer.

2 other projects use a version of this.

Adopted by

Most recently taken up by

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

4 rules. About 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈3

    Distinctive · estimate

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Cross-skill composition: Use feedback-loops first (audit your error signal).

    line 13
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask the plateau question: "When you practice X, what does it feel like after 15 minutes — harder, the same, or easier?" Comfort/easy = …

    line 31
  3. Distinctive:

    Step 3 — Diagnose the mental representation gap: Ask: "What does an expert *see* here that I don't?" Not what they do — the doing follows …

    line 46
  4. Distinctive:

    Step 4 — Design the repetition targeting the gap: Must trigger the sub-skill, produce in-session feedback, and be executable at …

    line 47

≈ “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

Deliberate Practice

Overview

Most people confuse repetition with learning — they accumulate years of experience and plateau. Once an activity becomes automatic, executing it no longer builds new neural architecture. Ericsson, Krampe & Tesch-Römer (1993) showed the predictive variable is not hours of doing but hours of specifically deliberate practice — targeted, uncomfortable, feedback-rich repetition designed to build mental representations.

Cross-skill composition: Use feedback-loops first (audit your error signal); then metacognition (surface your current representation gap); use instead of deep-work when acquiring skills, not producing output; use alongside cognitive-evolution-stages for stage-aware practice design.


When to Use

Trigger: plateau despite experience; designing high-performance learning program; training hours high but skill transfer low; evaluating whether practice is building capability or maintaining it; skill atrophy or deskilling as AI copilots absorb the routine reps (AI adoption, AI hype, "will AI make me worse at my craft"). When NOT: goal is execution not acquisition (use deep-work); no expert benchmark exists; bottleneck is motivational not representational.


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. Ask the plateau question: "When you practice X, what does it feel like after 15 minutes — harder, the same, or easier?" Comfort/easy = automatic = not building representations.
  2. Find the expert performance structure: "Who is world-class at X? What do they perceive in the first 3 seconds that you don't?" This locates the mental representation gap.
  3. Identify the discomfort zone: "What part of practicing X makes you most want to stop?" That is almost always where the gap lives.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Design the smallest feedback loop: "How would you know within 60 seconds whether a move was correct?" Latency over 24h kills representation-building.

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]

  1. Set the repetition target and stop-rule: "How many reps of this specific discomfort can you sustain before concentration drops?" (1–4 hours/day is Ericsson's ceiling.)

[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]


The Process

Step 1 — Define the sub-skill with precision. Not "get better at X" — specify the exact representational gap (e.g., "detect when counterpart shifts from positional to interest-based"). Step 2 — Find or construct the feedback mechanism. Latency >24h breaks action-result association. Expert feedback > peer one level above > simulation with ground truth. Step 3 — Diagnose the mental representation gap. Ask: "What does an expert see here that I don't?" Not what they do — the doing follows from the seeing. Step 4 — Design the repetition targeting the gap. Must trigger the sub-skill, produce in-session feedback, and be executable at dozens–hundreds of reps per session. Step 5 — Track representation progress, not output. Output metrics lag by weeks. Track: "Am I perceiving X earlier than before?" Step 6 — Apply the stop-rule. Comfort = automaticity maintenance. Redesign to a harder sub-skill. End session when concentration drops.

Output: Practice Design Artifact

Target sub-skill (precise): [specific representational gap]
Expert mental representation: [what expert perceives that I currently don't]
Current representation gap: [specific failure mode]
Feedback — Source / Latency / Reliability:
Repetition — Exercise / Volume / Duration / Frequency:
Progress indicator (representation-level, not output): [what I will perceive by Week N]
Stop-rule triggers: comfortable → redesign; concentration drops → end; latency >24h → redesign

→ Method in Action: Berlin Violin Study (1991–1993) · Franklin's Spectator Method → 2026 lens: Keeping Skill Alive When AI Does the Reps (2024–2026)


Practice Design Domain Packs

Medicine/Surgery: sub-skill: laparoscopic tissue manipulation; feedback: simulator + debrief within 1h; rationalization to reject: "I'll improve with more cases." Writing: sub-skill: eliminate nominalization in first-draft prose; feedback: rewrite published paragraphs vs original; rationalization: "I write every day." Investment: sub-skill: identify customer concentration risk from footnotes in 20 min; feedback: 50-case retrospective library with outcomes.

Contribute packs via the deciqAI repo — requires sub-skill, expert representation, feedback latency, and common rationalization.


Applying It Well

  • Target representations, not outcomes — ask "What does the expert perceive that I don't?"
  • Make feedback faster — redesign question: "How do I get a reliable signal within 60 seconds?"
  • Comfort signals time to redesign, not celebrate.
  • 1–4 genuine hours/day is Ericsson's hard ceiling; volume in degraded concentration reinforces errors.
  • Require expert think-alouds or annotated examples — you cannot design practice you cannot see.

→ Primary sources: references/sources.md


Common Rationalizations

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

Fake moveReality
[D] "I've been doing this for 10 years."Duration is not deliberate practice. Years in automaticity = maintenance, not development.
[D] "I practice every day."Comfortable daily repetition is automaticity reinforcement, not representation-building.
[D] "More cases/reps will help."Only if structured to exceed current capability with rapid feedback. Otherwise more reps deepen the rut.
[D] "I can give myself feedback."Self-feedback confirms what you already believe. External feedback from someone who sees the expert standard is required.
[D] "The discomfort means I'm doing it wrong."Discomfort is the signal you are in deliberate practice. Comfort means automaticity.
[D] "My metrics are going up."Output lags representation by weeks and is confounded by external factors.
→ Add [O] entries after each real use — paste the actual failure patternWhat went wrong and why

Red Flags / Verification

  • Sessions feel comfortable — automaticity has absorbed the activity.
  • Feedback latency measured in days — action-result association cannot form.
  • Practitioner describes what expert does but not what they perceive — no representational target.
  • Practice volume cited as expertise without verifying hours were deliberate.
  • Sub-skill = specific representational gap; feedback latency <24h; expert representation identified.
  • Reps: dozens per session; stop-rule applied; progress tracked at representation level not output level.

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/deliberate-practice · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.

Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/deliberate-practice.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.