agentleFS
envisioningenvisioning/skills/skills/scenarios/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Very specific:

    Read first: ../../core/envisioning.md, ../../core/signal-schema.md, ../../core/voice.md.

    line 11
  2. Distinctive:

    Choose two axes: Must be independent (knowing one tells you nothing about the other) and each must have two genuinely different poles.

    line 30
  3. Distinctive:

    Do not produce "good / bad / status quo / wildcard" — that is not a 2x2.

    line 70
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not assign probabilities to quadrants.

    line 71

“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.

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

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

  1. Focal question. One sentence, decision-shaped: "How should <actor> position for <domain> by <year>?" Not "What is the future of X."
  2. Driving forces. From the cards and grounding, list 8–12 forces. Each one: name, current direction, STEEP layer, which cards support it.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Robust moves. Actions that are sensible in three or four quadrants. This is the deliverable most readers want; give it its own section.
  7. 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 table

Refusals

  • 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.

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.