scenarios
Skill2 starsChanged 52 days agoMITView on GitHub
Build a 2x2 scenario set from a topic or a set of signals — extract critical uncertainties, pick the two that matter, name four scenarios, and give each one tells and a strategic posture. Use when the user asks "what could happen", "scenarios for", "possible futures", "how might this play out", or wants to plan against uncertainty rather than a forecast. Stage: project.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- jantichy/claudetheir own version, first seen Oct 27, 2026
- Autonoma-AI/autonomatheir own version, first seen Oct 9, 2026
- hass-energy/haeotheir own version, first seen Oct 8, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- Autonoma-AI/autonoma★ 242same name
- hass-energy/haeo★ 77same name
- jantichy/claude★ 45same name
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository16 other files it gives its agents.
- adjacency-scanSkill
- artifact-from-the-futureSkill
- competitive-scanSkill
- framesSkill
- grill-the-futureSkill
- groundSkill
- horizon-scanSkill
- implicationsSkill
- innovation-radarSkill
- mergeSkill
- regulatory-scanSkill
- reportSkill
- risk-radarSkill
- scopeSkill
- signalSkill
- technology-scanSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 3 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
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
- Very specific: line 11
Read first: ../../core/envisioning.md, ../../core/signal-schema.md, ../../core/voice.md.
- Distinctive: line 30
Choose two axes: Must be independent (knowing one tells you nothing about the other) and each must have two genuinely different poles.
- Distinctive: line 70
Do not produce "good / bad / status quo / wildcard" — that is not a 2x2.
- Distinctive: line 71
Do not assign probabilities to quadrants.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 3 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
scenarios
Four futures that are each plausible, distinct and useful. The 2x2 is a constraint, not a template: the work is choosing the axes.
Read first: ../../core/envisioning.md, ../../core/signal-schema.md,
../../core/voice.md.
Input
A focal question, a horizon (default 10 years), and signal cards. If the
user gives a topic without cards, ground; if fewer than three cards exist,
say so and either run signal on sources they provide or proceed with a
grounding: thin flag in frontmatter.
Procedure
- Focal question. One sentence, decision-shaped: "How should
<actor>position for<domain>by<year>?" Not "What is the future of X." - Driving forces. From the cards and grounding, list 8–12 forces. Each one: name, current direction, STEEP layer, which cards support it.
- Sort by impact × uncertainty. High impact + low uncertainty → predetermined elements: true in every scenario, listed once, not an axis. High impact + high uncertainty → axis candidates.
- Choose two axes. Must be independent (knowing one tells you nothing about the other) and each must have two genuinely different poles. Write the poles as states, not as "more/less". Reject an axis if all four resulting quadrants would recommend the same action.
- Name four scenarios. Names are two or three words, evocative, no
puns. For each:
- Narrative — 120–180 words in the present tense of the horizon year.
- How we got here — three dated events between now and then.
- Who wins, who loses — named actor types.
- Tells — two early indicators, observable within 18 months, that this quadrant is becoming more likely.
- Posture — what the focal actor should do if this is where it goes.
- Robust moves. Actions that are sensible in three or four quadrants. This is the deliverable most readers want; give it its own section.
- Persist per envisioning.md.
Output
---
kind: scenarios
title: <focal question>
horizon: <year>
axes:
- { name:, low:, high: }
- { name:, low:, high: }
sources: [<cards>]
grounding: <ok | thin>
---
## Focal question
## Predetermined elements
## Axes
## Scenarios
### <name> (<axis1 pole> × <axis2 pole>)
## Robust moves
## Tells to monitor ← all eight in one tableRefusals
- Do not produce "good / bad / status quo / wildcard" — that is not a 2x2.
- Do not assign probabilities to quadrants. Scenarios are for rehearsal, not forecasting; say so if asked.
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
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.

