qwen38-think
Skill2 starsChanged 20 days agoMITView on GitHub
The thinking a small model skips, as steps it must write down: before the first edit, an assumptions table and a three-flaw check on the brief (contradiction, missing fact, impossible ask), each flaw checked by a command; when stuck, one observation, one hypothesis, one falsifying command; and a THINK report line. Pushback is a written line in the report, never a question that stops the work. Slice 2 of xeno-skills #355.
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
2 rules. About 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈1
Distinctive · estimate
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 42
Write three lines before the next attempt:
- Very specific: line 49
Run the falsifying command.
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 308,232 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
Think first (qwen38-think)
Before the first edit, write the two tables below into your answer. Then build. End with the THINK line. Doing the work first and the tables after is a fail of this skill.
1. Assumptions table
Everything the brief leaves open that changes what you would build. Take the assumption; do not ask.
| open in the brief | the assumption you take | why this one |
| e.g. "ordering when quantities tie" | by sku, ascending | the brief orders by quantity; a stable secondary key is the usual reading |
Zero rows is allowed only if you write "none — the brief fixes every choice" and can point to where.
2. Three-flaw check — each one checked, not guessed
| flaw type | what you looked for | the command you ran | found? |
| contradiction — two sentences of the brief cannot both hold | e.g. "return None" and "return the remaining quantity" | grep -n "return" <file> / re-read the brief | yes / no |
| missing fact — a file, function, endpoint or value the brief names does not exist | e.g. inventory/report.py | ls <path> · grep -rn "<name>" . | yes / no |
| impossible ask — the brief forbids the only way to do what it asks | e.g. "make X O(1) without changing Y" | read the code path; name the line that makes it impossible | yes / no |
When a flaw is found: do not stop, do not ask, do not invent the missing thing. Write one line under the table — "Pushback: the brief says A and B; I build A because …" / "Pushback: inventory/report.py does not exist; I did not create it; the nearest file is …" / "Pushback: not possible as stated because …; I did the possible part: …" — and build the part that stands. The developer reads the report; a question asked instead of the work only stops it. In an interactive session you may ask once the report is delivered; in an unattended run there is nobody to answer, so the report is the whole channel.
2b. Thinking is for decisions, not for code
Decide in thinking — the structure, the file order, the risks — then build with tools. For work that spans files, write the order in one line (index.html → css → js/scene.js → js/main.js), then Write the first file. A file drafted in thinking is written twice (the draft, then the Write) and lost if the turn is cut: one GSQ turn was a 43,564-character thinking block with the whole page and both shaders in it, hit the output limit and wrote nothing; from the next turn, one file per turn after short thinking, all four files were done in 15 minutes (#377). Check what you built by running the check (node --check, the tests, the gate), not by re-reading it in thinking.
3. When stuck (a command fails twice, or the output makes no sense)
Write three lines before the next attempt:
Observed: <the exact last line of the failing output>
Hypothesis: <one cause>
Falsify: <one command whose result would rule it out>Run the falsifying command. If the cause is a missing tool or package: one line "<tool> is not installed; continuing without it" — never install, never search for an alternative, never spawn an agent (using-qwen38).
Report
THINK: assumptions <k> · flaws checked 3 · found <n> · pushback: <yes: the line | no>The line is the first line of the final report, before the task's own gate line (CODE GATE, GATE) when there is one — a gate report that starts with "Done." and no THINK: line dropped a correct pushback on 2026-09-05 17:38.
What this does not touch
How to build the thing — the task's own skill and gate. This file only makes the model write down what it would otherwise silently assume, and say what is wrong with a brief instead of working around it.
In this repository74 other files it gives its agents.
- CLAUDE.mdCLAUDE.md
- using-anti-slopSkill
- ask-xenoSkill
- design-auditSkill
- design-psychologySkill
- design-rulesSkill
- design-setupSkill
- design-ship-gateSkill
- using-designSkill
- karpathy-guidelinesSkill
- clink-brainstormSkill
- clink-debugSkill
- clink-masteragentSkill
- clink-subagentsSkill
- using-clinkSkill
- qwen38-claude-codeSkill
- qwen38-code-gateSkill
- qwen38-skill-styleSkill
- using-qwen38Skill
- using-security-auditSkill
- t4-afkSkill
- t4-agent-memorySkill
- t4-broSkill
- t4-dev-workflowSkill
- t4-engineering-recordsSkill
- t4-project-bootstrapSkill
- using-t4Skill
- aframe-webxrSkill
- animated-component-librariesSkill
- animejsSkill
- babylonjs-engineSkill
- barba-jsSkill
- brandkitSkill
- brandSkill
- design-systemSkill
- design-taste-frontendSkill
- design-taste-frontend-v1Skill
- frontend-designSkill
- gpt-tasteSkill
- gridgeistSkill
- gsap-scrolltriggerSkill
- hallmarkSkill
- high-end-visual-designSkill
- imagegen-frontend-mobileSkill
- imagegen-frontend-webSkill
- image-to-codeSkill
- impeccableSkill
- industrial-brutalist-uiSkill
- lightweight-3d-effectsSkill
- locomotive-scrollSkill
- lottie-animationsSkill
- minimalist-uiSkill
- modern-web-designSkill
- motion-framerSkill
- pixijs-2dSkill
- playcanvas-engineSkill
- playwright-cliSkill
- r3f-best-practicesSkill
- react-spring-physicsSkill
- react-three-fiberSkill
- The first 60 shown.
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.

