pm-situation-framing
Skill9 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Direct-invocation-only; never auto-load. Use only when explicitly named to create or update a PMKNB situation frame.
In this repository33 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- agentic-scaffoldingSkill
- annas-archive-ebooksSkill
- ansi-artSkill
- clarifySkill
- conjecture-cascadeSkill
- crystallizeSkill
- dianalokadaSkill
- duris-game-knowledgeSkill
- duris-group-combatSkill
- ebook-extractorSkill
- failure-modesSkill
- gpt-pro-loopSkill
- graph-researcherSkill
- improve-codebaseSkill
- jevSkill
- julian-writingSkill
- kalshi-prediction-marketSkill
- lemmaSkill
- medium-paywall-bypassSkill
- ml-learning-methodsSkill
- name-reviewSkill
- no-process-pornSkill
- pm-deep-analysisSkill
- pm-market-analysisSkill
- pm-research-methodologiesSkill
- prediction-drillSkill
- probe-driven-designSkill
- refine-testsSkill
- remove-ai-sinsSkill
- show-usageSkill
- writing-claude-skillsSkill
- x-undocumented-apiSkill
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
- Distinctive: line 15
Create a durable, isolated reasoning guide for a PMKNB situation.
- Distinctive: line 19
Keep the frame separate from evidence.
- Distinctive: line 20
Never turn unsourced interpretation into a claim about the world.
- Distinctive: line 23
Prefer gates, keyholders, actors, incentives, clocks, constraints, and observables over narrative summary.
- Distinctive: line 24
Use confidence for the frame's reasoning quality, not for the market outcome.
- Distinctive: line 26
Keep the frame compact enough for later agents to reuse.
- Distinctive: line 31
Write a falsifiable frame thesis: the current best model of what drives the situation.
- Distinctive: line 48
Use these labels strictly:
- Distinctive: line 57
Do not cite the frame as evidence.
- Distinctive: line 58
Do not introduce factual claims unless they are sourced in the active evidence context.
- Distinctive: line 59
Do not let actor-model language become factual language.
- Distinctive: line 60
Do not write naked predictions.
- Distinctive: line 132
Use only when relevant:
- Distinctive: line 137
Formal announcement risk: check implementation gaps before treating announcements as execution.
≈ “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
PM Situation Framing
Create a durable, isolated reasoning guide for a PMKNB situation. A situation frame is not evidence, not a forecast, and not a report. It is a structured model that helps later agents reason, research, and update without mixing facts with interpretation.
Core Rules
- Keep the frame separate from evidence. Frame judgments are hypotheses until separately sourced.
- Never turn unsourced interpretation into a claim about the world.
- Label every material statement as Sourced fact, Frame judgment, Inference, or Speculation.
- State what would change the frame, not merely what would support it.
- Prefer gates, keyholders, actors, incentives, clocks, constraints, and observables over narrative summary.
- Use confidence for the frame's reasoning quality, not for the market outcome.
- Mark uncertainty explicitly. Do not hide cruxes behind smooth prose.
- Keep the frame compact enough for later agents to reuse.
Build Process
- Define the frame boundary: what the frame covers and excludes.
- Write a falsifiable frame thesis: the current best model of what drives the situation.
- Identify resolution pathways: gates, choices, decisions, or facts that could resolve the market.
- Map actors:
- actor model: wants, fears, beliefs, constraints, capacities, incentives, action menu.
- power map: who can make, block, delay, force, legitimate, enforce, or route the outcome.
- Surface structure:
- gates and keyholders
- pressure points
- choice points
- clocks
- implementation gaps
- legibility gaps
- Identify cruxes, misread risks, observables, and tripwires.
- Set evidence standards and update rules.
Evidence Contamination Rules
Use these labels strictly:
- Sourced fact: externally supported claim already present in the evidence context.
- Frame judgment: analyst view of what matters or how structure fits together.
- Inference: reasoning from sourced facts, labeled as reasoning.
- Speculation: plausible but weakly supported possibility.
Rules:
- Do not cite the frame as evidence.
- Do not introduce factual claims unless they are sourced in the active evidence context.
- Do not let actor-model language become factual language.
- Do not write naked predictions. Mark them as frame judgments, inferences, or speculation.
- For every important unsourced claim, replace the claim with Evidence needed.
- Later agents must separately source any factual claim before using it in research, reports, forecasts, or market-resolution analysis.
Never write:
Actor X will block the outcome.
Prefer:
Frame judgment: Actor X is a likely blocker if its incentives remain aligned against the outcome. Evidence needed: public statement, filing, vote behavior, procedural action, or other observable opposition.
Output Template
# Situation Frame: [market/situation name]
## Frame Boundary
Covers:
Excludes:
## Frame Thesis
[1-3 sentences. Falsifiable. Label any judgment, inference, or speculation.]
## Resolution Pathways
1. [Pathway name]: [gates -> keyholders -> possible resolution route]
2. [Pathway name]: [gates -> keyholders -> possible resolution route]
## Actor / Power Map
| Actor | Wants / Fears | Constraints | Power Over Outcome | Likely Action Menu | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | | | | | Sourced fact / Frame judgment / Inference / Speculation |
## Gates, Clocks, and Pressure Points
| Item | Type | Keyholder | Why It Matters | Observable | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| | gate / clock / pressure point | | | | Sourced fact / Frame judgment / Inference / Speculation |
## Cruxes
1. [Uncertainty that would materially change the frame]
2. [Uncertainty that would materially change the frame]
## Misread Risks
- [Tempting but possibly wrong story, analogy, or causal model]
- [Source interpretation risk]
## Evidence Standard
What should count:
What should not count:
Evidence needed:
## Update Rules
- If [observable], update toward [frame change].
- If [observable], update away from [frame change].
- If [absence by clock/deadline], update by [rule].
## Tripwires
- [High-impact observable requiring immediate reframing or escalation]
## Research Posture
Best source classes:
Noisy / delayed / adversarial source classes:
Next research moves:
## Frame Confidence
[Low / Medium / High] - confidence in the frame structure, not the market outcome.
Reason:Pressure Modes
Use only when relevant:
- Fast-moving news: prioritize tripwires, clocks, and update rules over complete prose.
- Thin evidence: make legibility gaps explicit; do not fill gaps with confident narrative.
- Narrative capture: separate actor messaging from actor constraints.
- Formal announcement risk: check implementation gaps before treating announcements as execution.
- Procedural market: identify keyholders, gates, and deadlines before discussing incentives.
Quality Bar
A good situation frame:
- Has a clear boundary and falsifiable thesis.
- Names who can move, block, delay, force, or legitimate the outcome.
- Identifies gates and keyholders instead of only summarizing events.
- Includes observables that would actually update the frame.
- Contains at least one misread risk.
- Separates sourced facts, inferences, speculation, and frame judgments.
- Avoids forecasting language unless explicitly labeled as a hypothesis.
- Is reusable by a later agent without trust in hidden reasoning.
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.

