deepseek-reasoning-tier-clarifier
Skill1 starsChanged 11 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use when the user asks about reasoning effort or task scope is ambiguous; recommend a DeepSeek reasoning tier (low/medium/high/max).
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- vladcheck/skillsword for word, first seen Nov 1, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 1
- vladcheck/skills★ 1100% same
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
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 repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- analyze-session-pingpong-logsSkill
- create-glossarySkill
- defineSkill
- find-alternativesSkill
- get-note-links-from-textSkill
- gitlab-eas-tickets-publishSkill
- gitlab-mr-roundtripSkill
- git-rebuild-branchSkill
- git-sequentialSkill
- gost-report-rebuildSkill
- mattpocock-skills-researchSkill
- mirea-moodle-downloadSkill
- obsidian-add-links-to-noteSkill
- opsx-spec-validateSkill
- paretto-principleSkill
- publish-spec-gitlab-milestoneSkill
- publish-tickets-gitlabSkill
- solidSkill
- update-skills-via-skills-shSkill
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. About 0 are common, 13 are distinctive, and 5 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈13
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
5
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 22
Check conversation history for related context or prior decisions
- Distinctive: line 27
Use this skill when:
- Very specific: line 31
Before executing a high-cost max tier request on a potentially trivial task
- Distinctive: line 33
Do NOT use me for:
- Distinctive: line 45
Read the latest user message and identify the core task
- Distinctive: line 50
If the task references specific files, read them to assess:
- Distinctive: line 56
Use these heuristics to assign a preliminary tier:
- Distinctive: line 69
If task involves file I/O or external APIs, ensure tier supports tool use
- Very specific: line 70
If user has low latency requirements, cap at medium unless they confirm otherwise
- Very specific: line 71
If using V4 Flash, note that high/max tiers hit ~12k thinking token ceiling
- Very specific: line 101
If conversation context is sparse, default to medium and ask clarifying questions rather than guessing max.
- Distinctive: line 108
Check history: no prior tier preference found
- Distinctive: line 109
No file references to inspect
- Very specific: line 116
Read websocket.ts: confirms async state management, multiple event listeners
- Distinctive: line 122
After providing a recommendation:
- Distinctive: line 123
Wait for user confirmation if tier differs from their stated preference
- Distinctive: line 124
If user accepts, proceed with the task using the agreed tier
- Distinctive: line 125
If user rejects, note their choice and proceed with their selected tier
≈ “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
DeepSeek Reasoning Tier Classifier
Purpose
- Analyze the current task prompt for complexity signals
- Check conversation history for related context or prior decisions
- Optionally inspect referenced codebase files to assess technical scope
- Map task characteristics to a DeepSeek reasoning tier recommendation
- Present the recommendation with clear rationale and request confirmation if overriding user preference
Use this skill when:
- User explicitly asks which reasoning tier to use
- Task prompt is ambiguous about required reasoning depth
- You detect a mismatch between user-specified tier and task complexity
- Before executing a high-cost
maxtier request on a potentially trivial task
Do NOT use me for:
- Simple factual questions with no reasoning component
- Tasks where user has already confirmed their tier choice
- Non-DeepSeek model sessions
Requirements
- Any DeepSeek model that supports reasoning tiers is available;
Instructions
Step 1: Gather context
- Read the latest user message and identify the core task
- Scan the last 5-10 messages for:
- Prior tier selections or preferences
- Related code snippets or file references
- User statements about speed vs accuracy priorities
- If the task references specific files, read them to assess:
- Codebase size and structure
- Presence of complex logic, async operations, or external integrations
- Error handling requirements
Step 2: Classify task signals
Use these heuristics to assign a preliminary tier:
| Signal | Suggested tier |
Keywords: bash, grep, one-liner, list, simple, quick | low |
Keywords: debug, refactor, optimize, multi-step, plan | medium |
Keywords: architecture, race condition, algorithm, novel, research | high |
Keywords: prove, verify, formal, novel algorithm, high-stakes | max |
| File references to complex systems (distributed, async, ML pipelines) | +1 tier |
User explicitly states use max or speed is critical | Respect user override |
Step 3: Validate against constraints
Before finalizing recommendation:
- If task involves file I/O or external APIs, ensure tier supports tool use
- If user has low latency requirements, cap at
mediumunless they confirm otherwise - If using
V4 Flash, note thathigh/maxtiers hit ~12k thinking token ceiling
Output format
Present your recommendation using this structure:
## Reasoning tier recommendation
**Task**: [brief summary]
**Analysis**:
- Complexity signals: [list key observations]
- Context notes: [relevant history or file insights]
- Constraints: [latency, model, or user prefs]
**Recommended tier**: `low` | `medium` | `high` | `max`
**Rationale**: [1-2 sentences explaining the mapping]
**Next step**:
- If tier matches user request: "Proceed with `{{tier}}` reasoning."
- If tier differs: "Your request specified `{{user_tier}}`, but analysis suggests `{{recommended_tier}}`. Switch? (y/n)"Limitations
- DeepSeek API does not support dynamic tier switching mid-generation. Any change requires a new API call.
V4 Flashcaps effective thinking tokens at ~12k. Routehigh/maxtasks toV4 Proif available.- User may have cost sensitivity. Always surface the cost/latency tradeoff when recommending a higher tier.
- If conversation context is sparse, default to
mediumand ask clarifying questions rather than guessingmax.
Examples
User: "[calls the skill] Write a small bash script to search for files with grep where 'import' appears"
- Detect keywords:
bash,grep,small→ signalslow - Check history: no prior tier preference found
- No file references to inspect
- User did not specify a tier, so no override needed
- Output recommendation for
lowwith rationale
User: "[calls the skill] Debug this race condition in our WebSocket handler" + attaches websocket.ts
- Detect keyword:
debug,race condition→ signalshigh - Read
websocket.ts: confirms async state management, multiple event listeners - Complexity elevated by file analysis → confirm
highor considermax - Output recommendation for
highwith note thatmaxis available if deeper verification is needed
Validation loop
After providing a recommendation:
- Wait for user confirmation if tier differs from their stated preference
- If user accepts, proceed with the task using the agreed tier
- If user rejects, note their choice and proceed with their selected tier
- Log the decision in conversation for future reference (helps with pattern learning)
Troubleshooting
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.

