Thinking Kepner Tregoe

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 · 31 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-kepner-tregoeThe 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 84 days ago
• Sandboxed runNot runSkills are read, not executed; layer L4 is skipped

Its description: Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.

---
name: thinking-kepner-tregoe
description: Use when a selective defect needs IS/IS-NOT difference analysis or a consequential option choice needs must/want weighting and adverse-consequence comparison.
disable-model-invocation: true
---

# Kepner-Tregoe Analysis

**Core rule:** Diagnose deviations by testing causes against both IS and IS-NOT. Compare consequential choices by screening MUSTs, weighting WANTs, and exposing adverse consequences before selecting.

## When to Use

- A defect affects some objects, places, times, or cohorts but not comparable others.
- Several candidate causes remain and the contrast boundary can discriminate them.
- A consequential option choice has explicit non-negotiables, competing objectives, and risks that should be compared consistently.

## When NOT to Use

- A uniform failure has no meaningful IS-NOT contrast, or the cause is already confirmed.
- One cheap observation settles the cause or one option plainly dominates every requirement.
- The criteria cannot be made operational; clarify them before assigning weights.
- The task is forward failure discovery for a planned change rather than diagnosis or option selection.

## Procedure

1. **Choose the mode.** Use Problem Analysis for a deviation from expected behavior; use Decision Analysis for a choice among options. State the target and do not mix scores with causal evidence.
2. **Frame the target.** For a deviation, record object, defect, location, time, extent, and impact. For a choice, state the decision, alternatives, constraints, and deadline.
3. **Problem Analysis — build IS/IS-NOT.** For WHAT, WHERE, WHEN, and EXTENT, record IS, closest comparable IS-NOT, and the distinction unique to the IS side. List changes near the first occurrence.
4. **Problem Analysis — difference-test causes.** Generate candidates from distinctions and changes. A candidate survives only if it explains both IS and IS-NOT. Run the cheapest discriminating check; stop when one verified cause explains the full boundary.
5. **Decision Analysis — screen and score.** Define pass/fail MUSTs and weighted WANTs (1–10 importance) before scoring. Eliminate options that fail any MUST; score survivors against each WANT and calculate weighted totals using the same scale.
6. **Decision Analysis — test downside and sensitivity.** For leading options, list adverse consequences with probability × impact and identify assumptions or weight changes that would reverse the ranking. Do not let a high total conceal a ruinous failure mode.
7. **Decide or expose the gap.** Return the verified cause or highest-ranked acceptable option, the evidence/score behind it, residual risk, and next verification. If no cause verifies or no option passes MUSTs, return open/none rather than force a winner.

## Output

Return one mode-specific decision artifact:

- **Problem Analysis:** problem statement; IS/IS-NOT matrix with distinctions; nearby changes; candidate-vs-boundary tests; confirmed cause or next discriminating check.
- **Decision Analysis:** decision statement; alternatives; MUST screen; weighted WANT matrix; adverse-consequence table; sensitivity/reversal conditions; selected option or none.

## Verification

- **Falsify/stop:** reject a cause that cannot explain both sides of the boundary. Reject a choice if it fails a MUST, depends on inconsistent scoring, or loses under a plausible weight/risk change that was hidden.
- **Over-application guard:** skip the full matrix for an obvious cause, trivial choice, or one-shot check. Stop when the cause verifies or the option is robust enough for the stated stakes; extra rows are ceremony.

Excerpt, first 3,637 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. 2026-10-31
   ✓SAFE B 89 / 100

   first audit · source 9a5557e61022

Questions about Thinking Kepner Tregoe

• github.com/tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills/tree/main/skills/think — the audited source at commit 9a5557e61022 and every finding aboveObserved · 31 Oct 2026

Spotted something wrong? Report a correction · Methodology