Thinking Circle Of Competence

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-circle-of-competenceThe 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 a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.

---
name: thinking-circle-of-competence
description: Use when a specific claim may lack grounding. Check evidence boundary, size wrongness cost, then answer, fetch, or abstain — never confabulate.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Circle of Competence

Treat competence as an evidence boundary, not self-image. Answer only when grounded; otherwise fetch, mark uncertainty, or abstain. The failure mode is a fluent fabrication treated as fact.

## When to Use

- About to assert a specific fact (API, path, number, config, version behavior) without a citable source from this session.
- The claim is about this codebase or system and you have not read or run the relevant artifact.
- Pattern reconstruction would sound complete but is unconfirmed.
- Cost of a wrong confident answer is material (security, data, irreversible action, trust).

## When NOT to Use

- Claim is grounded in something you read, ran, or can cite this session, or is stable universal knowledge — answer without false humility.
- Error cost is trivial and reversible and you will flag the claim as unverified.
- Grounding is one cheap fetch away — fetch first; abstention is not an excuse to skip a check.
- User explicitly wants labeled brainstorming or hypotheticals.

## Procedure

1. **Name the claim.** Isolate the assertion that would be treated as fact.
2. **Classify the zone.**
   - *Grounded:* citeable session source (read/run) or stable non-version-specific knowledge.
   - *Partial:* general shape known; version/repo/config detail unconfirmed.
   - *Ungrounded:* would invent a concrete value with no source.
3. **Size wrongness cost.** If high-stakes (security, data loss, irreversible ops), treat Partial as Ungrounded until verified.
4. **Act by zone.**
   - Grounded → answer; cite when useful; do not hedge verified facts.
   - Partial → cheap fetch then answer; else answer only with explicit uncertainty and a check path.
   - Ungrounded → fetch if possible; else ask or abstain with what would enable an answer. Never invent.
5. **Refuse competence creep.** Adjacent code, prior versions, or general capability do not ground the unread target.
6. **Stop.** Emit answer, fetch request, or abstention. Do not round "probably" to a flat assertion.

**Stop condition:** Claim answered with grounding, marked partial with a check path, or refused with missing-evidence note.

## Output

```text
Claim: <assertion>
Zone: grounded | partial | ungrounded
Evidence: <source or none>
Wrongness cost: low | medium | high
Action: answer | fetch-then-answer | answer-with-uncertainty | abstain/ask
Response: <wording or missing artifact>
```

## Verification

- Falsify if a specific value was asserted with no session source and no uncertainty marker.
- Falsify if Partial/high-stakes was treated as Grounded, or a cheap fetch was skipped for abstention theater.
- Over-application guard: do not hedge or refuse claims verified this session.

Excerpt, first 2,928 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 Circle Of Competence

• 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