Thinking Bounded Rationality

What the source does

• FilesystemNone observedNo reads or writes in the source
• NetworkNone observedNo outbound calls in the source
• ShellNone observedNo commands run in the source
• DependenciesPinnedNothing floats
• SecretsNone foundNo keys in source

Five audit layers

Gates applied: no behavioural pass.

Audit 0.4.1 · source sha 9a5557e61022 · 22 Oct 2026Report an issue or request a re-scan

• Publishertjboudreaux GitHub userOwner of the repository this skill is read from
• Source foldertjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/skills/thinking-bounded-rationalityThe exact folder we audited
• LicenceMITAs the repository states it
• Commit pinned for this verdict9a5557e61022A new audit runs when the source changes
• Repository statusNot archivedLast push 75 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.

---
name: thinking-bounded-rationality
description: Use when search or investigation could run forever. Set an explicit good-enough threshold first, then stop at the first option that clears it.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Bounded Rationality

Under finite tool, context, and time budgets, stop at the first option that meets a predeclared aspiration level. Optimize only when the good-to-best gap is worth the remaining budget.

## When to Use

- Search or option comparison has no natural endpoint and could consume the turn budget.
- Multiple options would clear the requirement and further comparison has diminishing returns.
- The decision is reversible or low-stakes relative to more search.
- You are gathering context beyond what the decision needs to ship.

## When NOT to Use

- Irreversible or high-stakes choices (data loss, security, migrations, public commitments) where the good-to-best gap is material.
- Correctness gates: tests, security checks, and "did the fix work?" need the right answer, not a sufficient-looking one.
- One cheap lookup would settle the fact — do it; do not satisfice past it.
- The aspiration level cannot be stated — clarify the requirement first.

## Procedure

1. **State decision and budget.** Name the choice, residual tool/context/time budget, and reversibility.
2. **Set aspiration before searching.** Write concrete pass/fail criteria for "good enough." Do not evaluate until the threshold is explicit.
3. **Search sequentially.** Score options in encounter order against the threshold only. Skip full matrices unless step 1 marked high-stakes/irreversible.
4. **Stop at first adequate.** When an option clears every criterion, select it immediately.
5. **Handle search failure without moving the goalposts.** If nothing clears after the pre-set cap, preserve the threshold and report no adequate option. Relax only a criterion predeclared as non-load-bearing, record the relaxation, and resume within a new cap; never raise the bar after failure.
6. **Commit.** Record choice and residual uncertainty; spend remaining budget on execution, not re-ranking.

**Stop condition:** First option meets the predeclared aspiration level, or the search cap is exhausted with none adequate.

## Output

```text
Decision: <choice>
Aspiration: <pass/fail criteria>
Search: evaluated N; stopped at first adequate | cap exhausted
Selected: <option or none>
Residual risk: <what further search might change>
Next spend: <execution step>
```

## Verification

- Falsify if you kept comparing after an option cleared the threshold, or invented the threshold after seeing winners.
- Falsify if a correctness gate or irreversible decision was treated as satisficeable.
- Over-application guard: if one cheap check settles a fact, look it up — do not invoke this skill.

Excerpt, first 2,808 characters of SKILL.md, verbatim from the audited commit. It is text from someone else’s repository, quoted so you can judge it before your agent reads it.

git clone https://github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills
git -C cc-thinking-skills checkout 9a5557e61022

Works in

1. 2026-10-22
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 9a5557e61022

Questions about Thinking Bounded Rationality

• github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/tree/main/skills/think — the audited source at commit 9a5557e61022 and every finding aboveObserved · 22 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology