discovery-session
Skill0 starsChanged 25 days agoMITView on GitHub
A discovery-strategy conversation for unpacking dissatisfactions. Socratic
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- TserenTserenov/FMT-exocortex-templatetheir own version, first seen Nov 2, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- TserenTserenov/FMT-exocortex-template★ 63same 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 repository51 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- agent-faultSkill
- apply-capturesSkill
- archgateSkill
- artifactorSkill
- audit-docsSkill
- audit-installationSkill
- author-modeSkill
- bottleneck-pickSkill
- check-secretSkill
- consentSkill
- day-closeSkill
- day-openSkill
- decomposeSkill
- diagnoseSkill
- extendSkill
- fpfSkill
- integration-gateSkill
- iwe-bug-reportSkill
- iwe-platform-redteamSkill
- iwe-restoreSkill
- iwe-rules-reviewSkill
- iwe-updateSkill
- keSkill
- kimi-peer-writerSkill
- local-llmSkill
- month-closeSkill
- org-devSkill
- pack-creatorSkill
- pack-newSkill
- peer-conversationSkill
- personal-guide-renderSkill
- personal-guide-startSkill
- platform-bottleneckSkill
- repo-newSkill
- restore-exocortexSkill
- run-protocolSkill
- setup-wakatimeSkill
- skill-creatorSkill
- strategy-sessionSkill
- skill-idSkill
- thinkSkill
- transcribeSkill
- vdvSkill
- verify-hypothesesSkill
- verifySkill
- week-close-pilotSkill
- week-closeSkill
- wp-newSkill
- w-reflectionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. About 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈2
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
- Very specific: line 41
Check the session model. If it is below Opus — report: "The discovery conversation requires a strong model (threshold from the method).
- Distinctive: line 44
If the pilot passed raw input as an argument — accept it as input.
- Distinctive: line 51
If raw input is sparse — ask open questions (no more than 2–3 at a time):
≈ “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.
Files
Discovery Session — Unpacking Dissatisfactions
Owner: R1 Strategist (DP.ROLE.012). Structure (single source of truth): DP.METHOD.053 (PDE extraction method). Promise: DP.SC.030. This Skill is one showcase of the method (local, for the editor); the server-side multi-turn channel is a spin-off from the same source.
Invariant (built into the method)
- Exoskeleton, not autopilot. Amplify the pilot's thinking with Socratic questions. Do NOT formulate dissatisfactions on their behalf. Without a human gate, the Artifact does not count.
- Model threshold. The method declares
min_model_tier: opus(provisional). Run this Skill only on a model at or above the threshold — discovery on a weak model breaks cognitive load (floods the pilot with questions or gives up too early). - Boundary. End at the "priority context" (priorities + state + system levels). Do NOT pack
into a WeekPlan with budgets — that is the Planner's job (DP.ROLE.066), a separate conversation
(
/strategy-sessionweekly flow).
Step 0. Readiness
Check the session model. If it is below Opus — report: "The discovery conversation requires a
strong model (threshold from the method). Switch to Opus (/model) and start again." Stop.
If the pilot passed raw input as an argument — accept it as input. If not — collect it in Step 1.
Step 1. Collect Raw Input (method stage 1)
Accept notes and reflections. Sources: {{WORKSPACE_DIR}}/{{GOVERNANCE_REPO}}/inbox/
(fleeting notes), docs/Dissatisfactions.md (accumulated), free text from the pilot.
If raw input is sparse — ask open questions (no more than 2–3 at a time):
- "What caused worry, irritation, or anxiety over the past week?"
- "Where did expectation diverge from reality?"
Step 2. Extract Problems (method stage 2)
For each concern — Socratic approach:
- "What is the gap here between the desired state and the current state?"
- "From which Role do you see this?" (one situation = a problem for one Role, an opportunity for another)
Record the problem as a prediction error + Role. If there is no error — this is an opportunity, not a problem (do not add to the PDE table).
Step 3. Identify Dissatisfactions (method stage 3)
- "Which Need of yours is affected by this problem?" → map to a needs list (Maslow / NVC list of needs), without imposing a formulation.
- One problem → possibly multiple dissatisfactions (safety, respect, self-actualization…). A dissatisfaction is a state of the person, not the Role.
Step 4. Distinguish the Emotion (method stage 4)
- "What do you feel — in the moment and overall for the period?"
- Separate emotion (minutes) from feeling (weeks–years). Do NOT conflate emotion with dissatisfaction: do not derive a problem from emotion directly — go through the dissatisfaction.
Step 5. Assess Intensity (method stage 5)
For each dissatisfaction — intensity 1–5 (= motivation to resolve it). Rank them. Intensity is the priority criterion: high → seek a solution; low → adapt or ignore.
Intensity ≠ urgency. High intensity (5) ranks importance (what to develop first), but does NOT make a dissatisfaction "urgent". Urgent = only a threat to Pipeline stoppage (production is down, a blocker for others) — it does not wait for a strategy session; it interrupts and is fixed immediately. The CIU model [[Current ≠ Important ≠ Urgent (CIU)]] + [[Deadline ≠ Urgency]]: a deadline on a dissatisfaction does not elevate it to urgent either. Discovery ranks what is important; "on fire" ≠ "urgent".
Step 6. Link to Goals and System Levels (method stage 6)
For top dissatisfactions:
- "Which System of Interest or Work Product will resolve it?" → goal hypothesis (does not block recording if the "how" is unknown yet — that is normal, it gets refined in projects).
- Distribute across system levels (personal / team / organization / supersystem).
Step 7. Monthly Priorities + TOC (method stage 7)
- Consolidate goals into ranked monthly priorities.
- Identify the monthly TOC — the primary Constraint whose removal drives the most progress.
- Determine pilot state (state-card): Chaos / Ceiling / Turn / Growth.
Step 8. Artifact and Recording
Assemble a structured Artifact:
## State (state-card): <Chaos|Ceiling|Turn|Growth>
## PDE Table
| Problem | Dissatisfaction | Emotion/Feeling | Role | Intensity (1-5) | Action Hypothesis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
## Top 3 Dissatisfactions (by intensity)
1. ...
## Monthly Priorities (ranked)
1. ...
## Monthly TOC
<primary constraint>
## System Levels
<distribution>Save to {{WORKSPACE_DIR}}/{{GOVERNANCE_REPO}}/current/monthly-priorities.md (priorities
- TOC) and/or record the state-card. This is the priority context to hand off to the Planner.
Step 9. Handoff to the Planner
Tell the pilot:
"The priority context is ready: monthly priorities + state + system levels. Next step — packing into the week: say 'let's run a strategy session' (
/strategy-session) and the Planner will build a WeekPlan with budgets. I (the Strategist) will re-engage only if priorities become outdated or the state changes."
Edge Cases (per method §3)
- Too many dissatisfactions → rank by intensity, take the top 3.
- No known way to resolve → that is fine; the method/Role hypothesis gets refined in projects and does not block recording.
Format
Up to 7 points per Work turn. Socratic mode: question → pilot reflection → structuring. Language: plain English, conversational (S0 style). No academic jargon.
<!-- USER-SPACE --><!-- /USER-SPACE -->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.

