agentleFS
impactbrusselsimpactbrussels/FounderOS/skills/apply-mental-models/SKILL.md

apply-mental-models

Skill2 starsChanged 5 months agoApache-2.0View on GitHub

Use when a founder faces a hard, ambiguous, or high-stakes decision and wants to think it through with proven lenses rather than gut alone - "help me think about this", "what am I missing", "should I do X or Y", "stress-test my thinking", "I'm stuck on a decision". Applies the right mental models (inversion, antifragility, work-backwards, power law) and the author's frameworks (Proof Ladder, Trust Stack, Five Killers) to surface blind spots and isolate the real judgement call.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

1 rule. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈1

    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:

    Match effort to stakes: Don't run a full panel on a reversible, cheap decision.

    line 74

≈ “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

Apply Mental Models

Founders make a hundred judgement calls with no playbook. The fastest way to think better isn't more data - it's running the decision through a few sharp lenses that each catch a different blind spot. This skill picks the right lenses for your decision and forces the thinking that gut alone skips. Proof before hype: a decision examined from three angles beats a confident first instinct.

The method

Built on the Founder OS scaffold. The full lens library - classic models (Munger, Taleb, Bezos, Thiel, Graham) and the author's frameworks (Proof Ladder, Trust Stack, Narrative-Evidence Gap, Five Killers, Operator's Creed) - is in references/mental-models.md.

Step 1 - Frame the decision

State it in one sentence, and classify it:

  • Reversible (two-way door)? Then bias to speed - don't over-think it.
  • Irreversible (one-way door)? Slow down; this is where lenses earn their keep.
  • What's the [CONSTRAINT] (runway, time) and what would make this decision wrong?

Step 2 - Pick 2-3 lenses that fit (not all of them)

Match the lens to the decision (see references for the full set and when to use each):

Decision typeLenses that earn their keep
Big bet / strategyInversion · Power law · Contrarian question · Barbell
Launch / claim / messagingProof Ladder · Copy Test · Narrative-Evidence Gap
Survival / runwayThe Five Killers · Antifragility · Via negativa
Build vs notWork-backwards / press-release test · Do things that don't scale
Trust / positioningTrust Stack · Comparison-Set Problem
Advice you've been givenSkin in the game · Circle of competence

Step 3 - Run the decision through each lens

For each chosen lens, write the one sentence it produces. E.g. Inversion: "the surest way to kill this is X - so guard against X." Power law: "one of these five things matters most - it's Y."

Step 4 - Read the pattern

  • Where do the lenses agree? → higher confidence; act.
  • Where do they conflict? → that's the real judgement call; name it explicitly and decide with eyes open.
  • What does each lens say you're missing?

Step 5 - Decide and record

Make the call, state the reasoning in two lines, and feed the outcome to capture-learning so the lesson compounds.

Output

  • The decision framed (and reversible vs not).
  • 2-3 lenses applied, one sentence each.
  • Where they agree / conflict, and what you were missing.
  • The decision + reasoning, ready to log.

Constraints

  • Lenses, not laws. Models reveal blind spots; they don't make the call for you. Your evidence about your own startup wins.
  • Two or three, not ten. Lens overload is just procrastination with vocabulary.
  • Match effort to stakes. Don't run a full panel on a reversible, cheap decision.
  • Stay theme-agnostic; the founder supplies the situation.

Copy-paste version

Act as a sharp founder-advisor with a latticework of mental models. My decision: [DECISION].
It's [reversible / irreversible]. My biggest constraint: [CONSTRAINT].
1. Pick the 2-3 lenses that best fit this decision from: inversion, power law, antifragility,
   barbell, work-backwards/press-release test, skin in the game, circle of competence,
   "do things that don't scale", and (for claims) Proof Ladder, Copy Test, Trust Stack,
   Five Killers risk-check.
2. Run my decision through each - give me the ONE sentence each lens produces.
3. Tell me where the lenses agree (act), where they conflict (the real judgement call), and what
   I'm missing.
4. Then state the decision you'd make and the two-line reasoning. Remind me it's my call, not yours.

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.