agentleFS
q2522879285-sourceq2522879285-source/red-monkey-reasoning-kit/skills/socratic-problem-framing/SKILL.md

socratic-problem-framing

Skill2 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub

Clarify an ambiguous or possibly misframed problem through a bounded Socratic sequence. Use when one missing user fact could change the route, terms or goals are unclear, or the user explicitly asks to be questioned before advice. Skip simple facts, fixed-scope execution, emergencies needing immediate containment, and questions answerable from available artifacts.

The file

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

8 rules. About 0 are common, 6 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.

  • ≈0

    Common · estimate

    Many files like this have a rule of this kind.

  • ≈6

    Distinctive · estimate

    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 when the request mixes facts, interpretations, values, and goals.

    line 12
  2. Distinctive:

    Ask only the unknown most likely to change the route.

    line 19
  3. Distinctive:

    After each answer, state in one sentence what was confirmed, weakened, or reframed.

    line 20
  4. Distinctive:

    Check vague terms, hidden premises, evidence sources, credible counterexamples, and conclusion-flipping variables.

    line 21
  5. Distinctive:

    Stop as soon as the frame is decision-ready.

    line 22
  6. Very specific:

    Use $fact-claim-audit when external claims need verification.

    line 28
  7. Very specific:

    Use $bidirectional-steelman only after there is a contestable judgment.

    line 29
  8. Distinctive:

    Do not ask for information already present in supplied files or tool state.

    line 30

≈ “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

Socratic Problem Framing

Own problem definition and uncertainty reduction. The active domain skill still owns facts, execution, and the eventual recommendation.

Route

Use when the request mixes facts, interpretations, values, and goals; key terms are vague; or one unavailable user fact could change the method or conclusion. Also use when the user explicitly says to ask first and not advise yet.

Skip direct lookups, translations, deterministic work, complete specifications, and questions whose missing details cannot change the direction. In an active incident, give the minimum reversible containment first, then clarify.

Procedure

  1. Restate the current concern and separate observed facts, interpretations, value judgments, desired outcomes, and unknowns.
  2. Ask only the unknown most likely to change the route. Ask one question per turn.
  3. After each answer, state in one sentence what was confirmed, weakened, or reframed.
  4. Check vague terms, hidden premises, evidence sources, credible counterexamples, and conclusion-flipping variables.
  5. Stop as soon as the frame is decision-ready; never ask questions to fill a quota. Six turns is a ceiling, not a target.
  6. Return the initial question, the real question, confirmed facts, unverified assumptions, key variables, and one precise next question or handoff.

Handoffs and Boundaries

  • Hand the clarified frame to the relevant domain skill.
  • Use $fact-claim-audit when external claims need verification.
  • Use $bidirectional-steelman only after there is a contestable judgment; do not manufacture opposing camps during framing.
  • Do not ask for information already present in supplied files or tool state.

Completion Gate

The reframed question names the object, desired outcome or decision, binding constraints, and the variable that matters. Facts and assumptions are separate, and every question asked had decision value.

Source Status

Distilled from the user-supplied “苏格拉底提问” method card. The card provides a proposed prompt structure, not empirical evidence that six questions or this method improves outcomes.

<!-- integration-watermark: 红猴子整合 -->

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.