agentleFS
n-n-coden-n-code/n-n-code-skills/.agents/skills/dream-thinking/SKILL.md

dream-thinking

Skill4 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub

Creative retrospective workflow that uses simulated dream imagery and metaphor to defamiliarize recent experience, then turns it into grounded hypotheses and next observations or actions. Use only when the user explicitly asks to dream, sleep on something, use a dream or nightmare lens, or reflect through metaphor. Do not use for ordinary retrospectives, postmortems, first-pass analysis, or as the basis for evidence-critical conclusions.

The file

Show its rules and text

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

14 rules. About 0 are common, 14 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈14

    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:

    Use a simulated sleep → dream → wake frame to see recent experience from an unfamiliar angle.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Use this as an explicitly requested, orthogonal creative-retrospective skill alongside relevant domain guidance.

    line 10
  3. Distinctive:

    Use only source material the user supplies or that you inspect within the authorized task scope.

    line 14
  4. Distinctive:

    Do not invent earlier sessions, recurring motifs, or source events.

    line 15
  5. Distinctive:

    Do not attribute unprovided feelings, motives, memories, or causal explanations to people as facts.

    line 16
  6. Distinctive:

    Default to conversation-only output.

    line 17
  7. Distinctive:

    Treat ordinary retrospectives, incident postmortems, handoffs, and factual summaries as adjacent work that should not activate this skill …

    line 18
  8. Distinctive:

    Default to a quick dream: one compact scene, its mapping, one grounded hypothesis, and a next observation or action.

    line 22
  9. Distinctive:

    Focus: use the named topic; otherwise use the smallest set of recent material that contains a meaningful pattern, tension, or contrast.

    line 26
  10. Distinctive:

    Check fit: If no meaningful pattern, tension, or contrast exists, or imagery would not change the interpretation, use the brief reflection …

    line 31
  11. Distinctive:

    Record only when requested: If the user asks for a reusable log, read references/dream-log-template.md and emit it in the conversation.

    line 36
  12. Distinctive:

    Source mapping: every material symbol maps to authorized source material.

    line 40
  13. Distinctive:

    Alternative explanation: consider the same facts without the metaphor.

    line 42
  14. Distinctive:

    When imagery would add nothing, output only:

    line 49

≈ “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

Dream Thinking

Use a simulated sleep → dream → wake frame to see recent experience from an unfamiliar angle. No actual sleep, waiting, overnight processing, or privileged insight occurs. Imagery can generate hypotheses; it is never evidence by itself.

Use this as an explicitly requested, orthogonal creative-retrospective skill alongside relevant domain guidance. It does not require a prior thinking or recursive-thinking pass. Use those skills instead for first-pass decisions or adversarial review.

Inputs and boundaries

  • Use only source material the user supplies or that you inspect within the authorized task scope. Treat prior dream logs as source only when the user supplies them.
  • Do not invent earlier sessions, recurring motifs, or source events.
  • Do not attribute unprovided feelings, motives, memories, or causal explanations to people as facts. Symbolic atmosphere is allowed when it is clearly part of the simulated scene.
  • Default to conversation-only output. Never save a log, write memory, or persist motifs unless the user explicitly asks and identifies the destination or approved memory scope.
  • Treat ordinary retrospectives, incident postmortems, handoffs, and factual summaries as adjacent work that should not activate this skill without an explicit dream or metaphor request.

Defaults and modifiers

Default to a quick dream: one compact scene, its mapping, one grounded hypothesis, and a next observation or action.

  • Tone: nightmare or risk-focused; alignment-focused; balanced by default.
  • Depth: quick by default; use a full cycle of one to three scenes only when requested or when distinct patterns, tensions, or contrasts genuinely benefit from juxtaposition.
  • Focus: use the named topic; otherwise use the smallest set of recent material that contains a meaningful pattern, tension, or contrast.

Workflow

  1. Prepare. Identify the source events, tensions, unanswered questions, or repeated patterns. Keep the set small and factual.
  2. Check fit. If no meaningful pattern, tension, or contrast exists, or imagery would not change the interpretation, use the brief reflection fallback.
  3. Dream. Recombine source elements into a concrete scene that preserves important relationships. Prefer one strong scene over several decorative ones.
  4. Map. Show which source element maps to each important symbol. If a symbol could fit almost any situation, replace or remove it.
  5. Interpret cautiously. Ground the hypothesis in the source material. For a conclusion that could materially affect a decision, state supporting evidence, a plausible alternative, and what could verify or falsify it. For low-stakes creative reflection, one concise grounding note is enough.
  6. Wake. Convert the useful hypothesis into a changed understanding, observation to watch, or next action. Drop imagery that changes neither understanding, attention, nor action.
  7. Record only when requested. If the user asks for a reusable log, read references/dream-log-template.md and emit it in the conversation. Persist it only with explicit destination-specific authorization.

Grounding checks

  • Source mapping: every material symbol maps to authorized source material.
  • Structural fidelity: dependencies, conflicts, and sequence are not reversed for dramatic effect.
  • Alternative explanation: consider the same facts without the metaphor; expose the alternative when it could materially change the hypothesis.
  • Testability: the interpretation predicts an observation, decision threshold, or useful next check.

Apply every check, but expose the evidence trail in proportion to the stakes. An interpretation that lacks source mapping and changes neither understanding, attention, nor action is decoration. Remove it or label it clearly as creative speculation.

Brief reflection fallback

When imagery would add nothing, output only:

  1. what happened
  2. what seems to matter
  3. what to watch next
  4. what observation or action, if any, follows

Output

For the default quick form:

  1. Dream — one compact symbolic scene.
  2. Mapping — the important source-to-symbol relationships.
  3. Working hypothesis — the grounded interpretation, with any material alternative, uncertainty, or confidence basis.
  4. Next observation or action — what to watch or do.

For a requested full cycle, use one to three materially different scenes and the same grounding checks. Add a dream log only when the user wants continuity or a reusable artifact.

Avoid

  • implying actual sleep, waiting, memory, or subconscious access
  • treating vivid imagery as evidence or prophecy
  • ungrounded poetry, generic symbols, or invented source material
  • mandatory mood, function, or symbol taxonomies
  • repetitive scene, interpretation, and log sections
  • persisting sensitive reflective material without explicit authorization

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.