systems-thinking
Skill20 starsChanged 27 days agoMITView on GitHub
Use for systems thinking, or when a change may ripple beyond its target: "what are the side effects?", "why does this keep coming back?", "how do these teams or services affect each other?". Maps loops, delays and leverage points. Skip for single-step fixes.
9 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworkstheir own version, first seen Oct 17, 2026
- fzfclee/consulting-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 2026
- mlevison/agent-thinking-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 7, 2026
- docxology/codomyrmextheir own version, first seen Oct 6, 2026
- itsmostafa/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 29, 2026
- younss/skillstheir own version, first seen Sep 8, 2026
Other versions9 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 9
- mlevison/agent-thinking-skills★ 18same name
- ironyjk/strategy-frameworks★ 14same name
- docxology/codomyrmex★ 10same name
- fzfclee/consulting-skills★ 6same name
- itsmostafa/agent-skills★ 4same name
- rcdelfin/agentkit★ 2same name
- younss/skills★ 1same name
- dhriyatinandu-bot/claude-skills★ 0same name
- vbrevik/claude_code_skills★ 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 repository17 other files it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
- analytical-thinkingSkill
- creative-thinkingSkill
- critical-thinkingSkill
- design-thinkingSkill
- ethical-thinkingSkill
- fermi-estimationSkill
- first-principles-thinkingSkill
- five-whysSkill
- lateral-thinkingSkill
- pre-mortemSkill
- prioritizationSkill
- six-thinking-hatsSkill
- strategic-thinkingSkill
- swot-analysisSkill
- thinking-method-selectorSkill
- tradeoff-analysisSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 8 edited versions we read keep these.
4
Distinctive
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 26
Gather first: Read the code, docs, tickets or metrics that describe how the parts connect before drawing the map.
- Distinctive: line 28
If the user already proposed an intervention, shorten Boundary but keep Structure and Dynamics.
- Distinctive: line 43
If no loop applies, say so in one line and why.
- Distinctive: line 51
Prefer changes to rules, information flows, incentives or goals over exhorting people to behave differently.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 8 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
Systems Thinking
See the whole before optimizing a part. End with recommendations that account for loops and delays.
When to use
- A problem keeps returning after "fixes".
- A change in one team, service or policy may hit others (unintended consequences, incentives, queues, backlogs).
- The user asks for root causes beyond a single person or component, or for a holistic view.
Skip: single-step linear tasks, one-variable calculations, fixes that need no map of interactions.
Before you start
- State in one block: System in focus (what is inside the boundary) and Pass (Boundary, Structure, Dynamics, Delays, Leverage, Synthesis).
- Gather first. Read the code, docs, tickets or metrics that describe how the parts connect before drawing the map. Ask up to 3 scoping questions only for what tools cannot answer.
- Light path. Small ask: 2-3 bullets per phase. Never skip Structure before Leverage, even on the light path.
- If the user already proposed an intervention, shorten Boundary but keep Structure and Dynamics.
Phases
1. Boundary
What is in and out for this analysis. One sentence on the system's purpose from a stakeholder's view.
2. Structure
Elements (stocks that accumulate, actors, resources) and flows (rates in and out). Short pairs: From -> To: what moves.
3. Dynamics
At least one reinforcing (R) and one balancing (B) loop where plausible:
Loop [R|B]: ... - Mechanism: ...
If no loop applies, say so in one line and why.
4. Delays
Where is the lag between action and effect? How does it change behavior (overshoot, oscillation, giving up too early)?
5. Leverage
Leverage point: ... - Why it matters: ... - Risk of backfire: ...
Prefer changes to rules, information flows, incentives or goals over exhorting people to behave differently. Donella Meadows ranks these as stronger levers than adjusting parameters such as limits and budgets.
6. Synthesis
- System story: one plain-language paragraph.
- Non-obvious consequence: at least one.
- Recommended moves: 2-3 actions consistent with the loops and delays above.
Pitfalls
- Jumping to solutions before Structure and a light Dynamics pass.
- Stopping at "X is careless". Translate to the incentive or information gap behind the behavior.
- Drawing every box you can think of. Include only elements that change the answer.
- A fix that works now but triggers a balancing loop later. Check Delays against each recommendation.
Diagrams are optional; the bullets must stand alone. Worked example: references/example.md.
Checklist
- System in focus and Pass stated
- Boundary and purpose explicit
- Structure uses elements and From -> To flows
- Dynamics: R and B loops, or N/A justified
- Delays considered where time matters
- Leverage tied to the map, with backfire risk
- Synthesis tells one coherent story
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.

