simulate
Skill6 starsChanged 13 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Run what-if scenarios to explore outcomes and test hypotheses. Use when evaluating alternatives, stress-testing designs, exploring edge cases, or predicting system behavior under different conditions.
7 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ScottDuncanAI/HistorianSimtheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- wellwelwel/lagunetheir own version, first seen Oct 31, 2026
- teachskillofskills-ai/DigitalMarketingPro-techshutheir own version, first seen Oct 11, 2026
- Consortium-team/project-creatortheir own version, first seen Sep 10, 2026
- bang9/claude-code-settingstheir own version, first seen Apr 19, 2026
- progrmoiz/skillstheir own version, first seen Mar 31, 2026
Other versions7 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 7
- indranilbanerjee/digital-marketing-pro★ 934same name
- wellwelwel/lagune★ 177same name
- ScottDuncanAI/HistorianSim★ 19same name
- Consortium-team/project-creator★ 17same name
- bang9/claude-code-settings★ 2same name
- progrmoiz/skills★ 2same name
- teachskillofskills-ai/DigitalMarketingPro-techshu★ 0same 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 repository42 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- attributeSkill
- auditSkill
- gap-analysis-workflowSkill
- checkpointSkill
- classifySkill
- compareSkill
- constrainSkill
- critiqueSkill
- debug-workflowSkill
- decomposeSkill
- delegateSkill
- detectSkill
- digital-twin-bootstrapSkill
- digital-twin-sync-workflowSkill
- discover-capabilitiesSkill
- discoverSkill
- executeSkill
- explainSkill
- generateSkill
- groundSkill
- inquireSkill
- integrateSkill
- invokeSkill
- measureSkill
- mutateSkill
- observeSkill
- persistSkill
- perspective-validationSkill
- planSkill
- predictSkill
- recallSkill
- receiveSkill
- retrieveSkill
- rollbackSkill
- searchSkill
- sendSkill
- stateSkill
- synchronizeSkill
- transformSkill
- transitionSkill
- verifySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
6 rules. 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 7 edited versions we read keep these.
5
Distinctive
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
- Distinctive: line 44
Use provided initial_state or current system state
- Distinctive: line 53
Explore branches: Consider alternative paths
- Distinctive: line 303
Verification tools: Read (to verify model components)
- Distinctive: line 316
Do not present simulation as prediction
- Very specific: line 331
Never treat simulation as certainty (use verify for real testing)
- Distinctive: line 332
Avoid simulating without state/transition models
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 7 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Intent
Execute mental simulations of scenarios to explore outcomes without making real changes. This capability enables safe exploration of "what-if" questions and helps identify risks before action.
Success criteria:
- Scenario executed through logical steps
- Multiple outcomes considered
- Key decision points identified
- Assumptions made explicit
Compatible schemas:
schemas/output_schema.yaml
Inputs
| Parameter | Required | Type | Description |
scenario | Yes | object | Scenario to simulate (intervention, change, event) |
initial_state | No | object | Starting state for simulation |
steps | No | integer | Number of simulation steps/iterations |
Inputs not listed here are outside the capability's contract: a workflow step that binds them gets W604 (STANDARD v1.1 §5.5).
Procedure
- Set up scenario: Define what is being simulated
- Clarify the intervention or change being tested
- Establish initial conditions
- Define simulation boundaries
- Initialize state: Establish starting point
- Use provided initial_state or current system state
- Validate state is consistent
- Note any simplifications
- Execute simulation: Step through scenario
- Apply changes specified in scenario
- Propagate effects through state
- Track state at each step
- Explore branches: Consider alternative paths
- Identify decision points
- Explore likely alternative outcomes
- Note probability of each branch
- Evaluate outcomes: Assess simulation results
- Compare final states across branches
- Identify risks and opportunities
- Note unexpected behaviors
- Document simulation: Record process and results
- List assumptions made
- Note limitations of simulation
- Provide evidence for conclusions
Output Contract
Return a structured object:
outcomes:
- branch_id: string # Unique branch identifier
probability: number # Estimated likelihood
final_state: object # State after simulation
key_events: array[string] # Notable events during simulation
risks: array[string] # Identified risks
trajectory:
- step: number
state: object # State at this step
changes: array[string] # What changed
final_state: object # Most likely final state
insights:
- type: string # risk, opportunity, surprise
description: string
severity: string # low, medium, high
simulation_meta:
steps_executed: number
branches_explored: number
assumptions: array[string]
confidence: 0..1
evidence_anchors: ["model:component", "assumption:id"]Field Definitions
| Field | Type | Description |
outcomes | array | Possible outcomes with probabilities |
trajectory | array | State changes over simulation |
final_state | object | Most likely end state |
insights | array | Risks, opportunities, and surprises found |
simulation_meta | object | Simulation parameters and assumptions |
confidence | number | 0.0-1.0 confidence in the simulation model |
evidence_anchors | array | References to the model components and assumptions used |
Examples
Example 1: Simulate Dependency Upgrade
Input:
scenario:
type: "dependency_upgrade"
change: "Upgrade Rails from 6.1 to 7.0"
initial_state:
rails_version: "6.1.7"
ruby_version: "3.1.0"
gems_count: 85
steps: 5Output:
outcomes:
- branch_id: "success_path"
probability: 0.60
final_state:
rails_version: "7.0.8"
breaking_changes_resolved: true
tests_passing: true
key_events:
- "ActiveStorage API changes detected"
- "Zeitwerk autoloading adjustments needed"
- "Deprecation warnings resolved"
risks:
- "Minor performance regression in asset pipeline"
- branch_id: "partial_failure"
probability: 0.30
final_state:
rails_version: "7.0.8"
breaking_changes_resolved: true
tests_passing: false
key_events:
- "ActiveRecord callback order changed"
- "3 test failures in UserService"
risks:
- "Subtle behavior changes in model callbacks"
- "Extended debugging time required"
- branch_id: "blocked"
probability: 0.10
final_state:
rails_version: "6.1.7"
upgrade_blocked: true
key_events:
- "Incompatible gem: devise_token_auth requires Rails < 7"
risks:
- "Upgrade blocked until gem updated"
trajectory:
- step: 1
state: { phase: "analysis" }
changes: ["Identified 12 deprecation warnings", "Found 3 incompatible gems"]
- step: 2
state: { phase: "gem_updates" }
changes: ["Updated 8 gems", "1 gem requires replacement"]
- step: 3
state: { phase: "code_changes" }
changes: ["Modified 15 files for API changes"]
- step: 4
state: { phase: "testing" }
changes: ["Tests executed", "85% passing initially"]
- step: 5
state: { phase: "resolution" }
changes: ["Fixed remaining issues"]
final_state:
rails_version: "7.0.8"
breaking_changes_resolved: true
tests_passing: true
effort_estimate: "2-3 days"
insights:
- type: "risk"
description: "devise_token_auth compatibility is the main blocker"
severity: "high"
- type: "opportunity"
description: "Rails 7 Hotwire enables simpler frontend code"
severity: "medium"
- type: "surprise"
description: "More callback order dependencies than expected"
severity: "medium"
simulation_meta:
steps_executed: 5
branches_explored: 3
assumptions:
- "Test suite provides good coverage"
- "No undocumented monkey patches"
- "CI environment matches production"
confidence: 0.75
evidence_anchors:
- "Gemfile:dependencies"
- "rails upgrade guide:7.0"
- "gem:devise_token_auth:compatibility"Example 2: Simulate Failure Scenario
Input:
scenario:
type: "failure_injection"
change: "Database becomes unavailable for 5 minutes"
initial_state:
database: "available"
cache: "warm"
queue_depth: 0
steps: 10Output:
outcomes:
- branch_id: "graceful_degradation"
probability: 0.40
final_state:
service_status: "degraded"
data_loss: false
user_impact: "read_only_mode"
key_events:
- "Circuit breaker activates at t+30s"
- "Cache serves stale reads"
- "Writes queued for retry"
risks:
- "Cache expires during outage"
- branch_id: "cascade_failure"
probability: 0.35
final_state:
service_status: "down"
data_loss: false
user_impact: "complete_outage"
key_events:
- "Connection pool exhausted at t+60s"
- "Health checks fail"
- "Load balancer removes all instances"
risks:
- "Recovery requires manual intervention"
- branch_id: "data_inconsistency"
probability: 0.25
final_state:
service_status: "recovered"
data_loss: "possible"
user_impact: "partial_data_loss"
key_events:
- "In-flight transactions lost"
- "Retry logic creates duplicates"
risks:
- "Data reconciliation needed"
trajectory:
- step: 1
state: { db: "available", errors: 0 }
changes: []
- step: 2
state: { db: "unavailable", errors: "increasing" }
changes: ["First connection timeout"]
- step: 3
state: { db: "unavailable", circuit: "open" }
changes: ["Circuit breaker triggered"]
final_state:
database: "available"
service_status: "recovering"
queue_depth: 1250
insights:
- type: "risk"
description: "No circuit breaker on write path"
severity: "high"
- type: "risk"
description: "Connection pool timeout too long (30s)"
severity: "medium"
- type: "opportunity"
description: "Add read replica failover"
severity: "medium"
simulation_meta:
steps_executed: 10
branches_explored: 3
assumptions:
- "Database failure is total, not partial"
- "No manual intervention during outage"
- "Cache TTL is 5 minutes"
confidence: 0.65
evidence_anchors:
- "config/database.yml:pool_settings"
- "app/services/circuit_breaker.rb"
- "architecture:failure_modes"Verification
- Scenario clearly defined
- At least one outcome path explored
- Probabilities assigned to outcomes
- Key assumptions documented
- Insights identify actionable findings
Verification tools: Read (to verify model components)
Safety Constraints
mutation: falserequires_checkpoint: falserequires_approval: falserisk: low
Capability-specific rules:
- Simulation does not modify real state
- Note when model may be incomplete
- Flag high-uncertainty outcomes
- Do not present simulation as prediction
Composition Patterns
Commonly follows:
state- State model provides simulation basistransition- Transition rules drive simulationplan- Simulate plan outcomes before execution
Commonly precedes:
compare- Compare simulation outcomesplan- Inform planning with simulation insightscritique- Critique designs based on simulation
Anti-patterns:
- Never treat simulation as certainty (use
verifyfor real testing) - Avoid simulating without state/transition models
Workflow references:
- See
reference/workflow_catalog.yaml#world_model_buildfor simulation in modeling
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.

