agentleFS
fzfcleefzfclee/consulting-skills/skills/systems-thinking/SKILL.md

systems-thinking

Skill6 starsChanged 4 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a problem involves interacting actors, feedback loops, delays, incentives, constraints, unintended consequences, or repeated patterns over time. Use when applying systems thinking, causal loop analysis, system mapping, leverage point identification, or dynamic complexity diagnosis.

9 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

5 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 3

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 2

    Very specific

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

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Distinctive:

    Use this skill to understand how parts of a system interact and why behavior persists over time.

    line 9
  2. Distinctive:

    Keep the system boundary explicit so the analysis stays usable.

    line 16
  3. Very specific:

    If an input is missing, mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

    line 30
  4. Very specific:

    Do not use when the issue is a one-off decision with stable criteria.

    line 34
  5. Distinctive:

    Use a simpler root-cause, constraint, or decision method when dynamic complexity is absent.

    line 105

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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

Systems Thinking

Use this skill to understand how parts of a system interact and why behavior persists over time.

Method Notes

  • Systems thinking focuses on relationships, feedback loops, delays, incentives, and patterns.
  • It is useful when direct cause-and-effect explanations are too shallow.
  • L0 diagnoses dynamic mechanisms and identifies evidence to validate; L1 also evaluates leverage points and stress-tests a proposed intervention. Neither level needs a complicated map for its own sake.
  • Keep the system boundary explicit so the analysis stays usable.

Required Inputs

Collect or infer these inputs before execution:

  • system or problem boundary
  • actors, components, processes, or variables
  • repeated pattern or outcome
  • incentives, constraints, and feedback signals
  • time horizon and behavior-over-time pattern
  • time delays or unintended consequences
  • evidence for relationship direction, loop logic, and expected trend

If an input is missing, mark it as missing, state the assumption used, and add a validation action.

When Not To Use

Do not use when the issue is a one-off decision with stable criteria. Use decision-matrix, deductive-reasoning, or risk-matrix instead.

Adjacent Methods

  • five-whys-root-cause: one linear cause chain.
  • fishbone-diagram: several operational cause categories.
  • constraint-analysis: one binding bottleneck.

Step-by-Step Execution

StepRequired inputHow to executeOutput
Select level and boundaryDecision need, scope, time horizon, available evidence.Choose L0 for a qualitative dynamic map or L1 when a proposed intervention must be stress-tested. State what is inside, outside, and not modeled.Level statement and system boundary.
Describe behavior over timeOutcome history, trend, recurring episodes, baseline.Describe the pattern before explaining it: growth, decline, oscillation, plateau, overshoot, or repeated return. Mark missing time-series evidence.Behavior-over-time pattern.
Identify key variablesActors, resources, decisions, behaviors, metrics, constraints.Keep only variables that can materially change the outcome within the chosen horizon. Mark owner and evidence strength.Decision-relevant variable list.
Map directional relationshipsVariables, observations, causal evidence.For each link, state whether the source increases or decreases the target, assign positive, negative, or unknown polarity, and mark delay and evidence.Signed relationship map.
Close feedback loopsSigned relationships.Trace closed paths. Label reinforcing loops that amplify change and balancing loops that counter it. Do not call an open chain a loop.Named R/B loops and dominant conditions.
Add delays, incentives, and constraintsProcess timing, rules, rewards, decision rights.Show where response is delayed, which incentives create behavior, and which constraints limit adjustment.Dynamic mechanism diagnosis.
Identify leverage pointsLoops, constraints, control rights, intervention options.For L1, find changes that alter information, incentives, rules, capacity, delay, or decision rights; rate controllability and evidence. For L0, record diagnostic mechanisms and validation needs without requiring ranked leverage points or intervention selection.L0 diagnostic mechanisms or L1 ranked leverage points.
Stress-test interventionProposed action, loops, delay, affected actors.For L1, predict direction over time, lag, compensating response, side effects, and problem displacement; define a lower-regret version. For L0, mark this step N/A because the selected scope is diagnosis only.L1 intervention stress test.
Define learning loopExpected trend, leading indicators, review cadence.Set signals, thresholds, owner, review date, and the assumption that must be revised if the pattern differs.Monitoring and model-revision plan.

Output Template

### 1. Level, Boundary, And Time
- Analysis level: L0 qualitative dynamic map / L1 decision stress test
- Problem / system:
- In scope:
- Out of scope:
- Time horizon:
- Behavior-over-time pattern:

### 2. Variables And Relationships
| From variable | Direction | To variable | Polarity (+/-/unknown) | Delay | Evidence / assumption |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | increases / decreases |  |  |  |  |

### 3. Feedback Loops
| Loop | Type | Mechanism | Dominant when | Evidence strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  | reinforcing / balancing |  |  |  |

### 4. Incentives, Constraints, And Leverage
L0: describe incentives, constraints, and diagnostic mechanisms; leverage point and control owner may be N/A with a reason. L1: identify leverage points and control owners.
| Actor / rule | Incentive or constraint | Behavior created | Leverage point | Control owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 5. Intervention Stress Test
L0: mark this section N/A because the selected scope is diagnosis only; do not select an intervention to fill the table. L1: complete the table for at least one proposed intervention.
| Intervention | Expected direction over time | Delay | Side effect / displacement | Low-regret adjustment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

### 6. Leading Signals And Model Revision
| Signal | Expected trend | Review date | Continue / adjust / stop threshold | Model assumption revised if |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|  |  |  |  |  |

Quality Gate

  • State whether the output is L0 or L1; never imply L2 simulation, calibrated forecasting, or quantitative stock-and-flow modeling.
  • Define the system boundary, excluded scope, time horizon, and behavior-over-time pattern.
  • Give each material relationship a direction and polarity; mark unknown polarity rather than inventing it.
  • Include at least one reinforcing or balancing loop only when the loop closes; a long cause list is not a system map.
  • Mark delays, incentives, constraints, evidence strength, and assumptions.
  • For L0: do not require intervention selection or stress testing. Provide an evidence-backed or explicitly hypothetical dynamic diagnosis, the unresolved relationships, and the next evidence-validation action with an owner and review date; explain why the intervention section is N/A.
  • For L1: stress-test at least one intervention for side effects, problem displacement, and delayed response; define a lower-regret adjustment. An L1 output cannot claim completion by marking the intervention test N/A.
  • Define leading signals, expected trend, decision threshold, and when the model should be revised.
  • Use a simpler root-cause, constraint, or decision method when dynamic complexity is absent.

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.