--- name: s4h description: "Master orchestration skill. Takes any situation in plain English, identifies the underlying goal, designs a multi-skill reasoning workflow, and executes it sequentially — feeding each skill's output into the next. Use when you say 'help me think through this', 'I need to figure out what to do', 'where do I start', or any time you want structured thinking applied end-to-end rather than routed to a single tool." --- # Human The master orchestration skill. You describe your situation and goal. This skill designs a tailored reasoning workflow — an ordered sequence of skills from across all 23 categories — then executes each step in sequence, feeding what each step reveals into the next. The result is compounding clarity, not a single tool's take. --- ## Your Process ### Step 1: Intake If the user hasn't described their situation, ask: > What are you trying to achieve? Describe the situation and what a good outcome looks like. Wait for their response before proceeding. Aim to understand: - **The goal**: what does success look like? - **The obstacle**: what's making this hard? - **The decision point**: what are they about to do, decide, or communicate? If any of these are unclear after reading their description, ask one targeted follow-up question before designing the plan. **Framing check:** Confirm the specific situation before continuing. State what you've identified — the goal, the obstacle, and the decision point — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`: - **Question:** "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the goal, obstacle, and what they're about to do or decide]. Is that right?" - **Header:** "Framing" - **Options:** - **Yes — proceed** — framing is correct - **Adjust** — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue - **Reframe** — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding --- ### Step 2: Design the Workflow Design an ordered sequence of 2–5 skills that together address the goal. Each skill in the sequence should serve a distinct function, and the output of each should meaningfully inform the next. **Sequence design principles:** - **Start with framing before analysis.** If the problem framing might be wrong, begin with `assumption-excavator` or `sensory-structured-observation` before applying analytical tools. - **Generate before evaluating.** If options are needed, put generation skills (`creativity-alternatives`, `decision-option-mapping`, `concept-fan`) before evaluation skills (`decision-criteria-weighting`, `logic-check`, `ethics-check`). - **Understand people before designing for them.** If the goal involves others' reactions, run `emotional-motivation-mapping` or `communication-audience-modeling` before `communication-objection-mapping` or `ethics-impact-scan`. - **Validate before committing.** If the goal ends in a decision or action, close with a stress-test skill (`decision-premortem-analysis`, `constraint-hardness-testing`, `logic-fixer`). - **End with synthesis when the goal is understanding.** For exploratory goals, close with a skill that produces a consolidated view (`systems-leverage-analysis`, `narrative-frame-analysis`, `aesthetic-coherence-check`). **Common workflow patterns:** | Goal type | Typical sequence | |---|---| | Make a complex decision | assumption-excavator → decision-option-mapping → decision-criteria-weighting → decision-premortem-analysis | | Solve a stuck problem | assumption-excavator → creativity-lateral-thinking → creativity-alternatives → constraint-hardness-testing | | Understand a human situation | emotional-motivation-mapping → social-power-mapping → communication-audience-modeling → ethics-empathy-circle | | Communicate something difficult | communication-audience-modeling → communication-objection-mapping → communication-clarity-audit | | Evaluate a plan or proposal | logic-check → decision-premortem-analysis → ethics-impact-scan → constraint-hardness-testing | | Think through a strategy | systems-leverage-analysis → strategy-terrain → strategy-positioning → decision-premortem-analysis | | Write or reshape something | writing-issues → writing-restructure → writing-tone-alignment → writing-line-editing | | Understand a system or pattern | systems-feedback-mapping → systems-leverage-analysis → historical-precedent-analysis | Use these as starting points. Adapt to the specific situation. **Before narrowing:** Show the full candidate workflow to the user before committing to a sequence. Use `AskUserQuestion`: - **Question:** "I've drafted a workflow of [N] steps. Before I lock it in, are there any steps you'd flag as especially important, any you'd cut, or any angle I've missed?" - **Header:** "Prioritise" - **Options:** - **Proceed with this sequence** — the plan looks right - **Flag one step** — user will name a step to prioritise or adjust - **Add a missing angle** — user will describe a lens or skill not yet included --- ### Step 3: Present the Plan Show the user the designed workflow before executing. Format it as an ordered list with the rationale for each step and the connection to the next: ``` Here's the plan I'd run for this: 1. **[skill-name]** — [why we start here; what it will surface] → feeds into step 2 by [how its output informs the next step] 2. **[skill-name]** — [what it does given step 1's output] → feeds into step 3 by [how its output informs the next step] 3. **[skill-name]** — [what it does given steps 1–2's output] [last step: what we'll have at the end] ``` Then ask: **"Run this plan, adjust it, or go straight to a specific step?"** Use `AskUserQuestion` with: - **Question:** "Ready to run the plan?" - **Header:** "Direction" - **Options:** - **Run the full plan** — Execute each step in sequence now - **Adjust the plan** — Tell me what to change before we start - **Skip to step [N]** — Jump directly to a specific step - **Just run one skill** — Pick the single most useful tool and run it now --- ### Step 4: Execute — Sequential with Chaining Run the first skill immediately. After each skill completes, pause and use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move before continuing. **Before each step (after the first), output a brief handoff:** > **[skill-name] complete.** > Key finding: [1–2 sentences on what this step revealed and why it matters]. Then use `AskUserQuestion` to present what to do next: - **Question:** "What's the next move?" (adapt to what was just found — e.g. "We've surfaced 5 assumptions. What now?") - **Header:** "Next" - **Options:** (build dynamically — 2–3 logical next skills given what the current step revealed, plus a wrap-up option) - Label: `/[skill-name]`, Description: [one sentence on why this fits as a follow-on and what it will produce given the current output] - (repeat for each next skill, up to 3) - Label: "Wrap up", Description: "Synthesise what we have so far and close out" **How to select next skill options:** Pick skills that directly consume the current output. Ask: *given what we just learned, what's the most useful next question to answer?* | If the current step produced… | Strong next skills | |---|---| | Surfaced hidden assumptions | creativity-lateral-thinking, decision-option-mapping, constraint-hardness-testing | | A list of options | decision-criteria-weighting, probability-scenario-weighting, decision-premortem-analysis | | A stress-test or failure map | constraint-workaround-mapping, logic-fixer, strategy-positioning | | A map of stakeholders or motivations | communication-objection-mapping, ethics-empathy-circle, social-incentive-analysis | | A logic or argument check | logic-fixer, ethics-check, constraint-hardness-testing | | A systems or leverage map | strategy-positioning, resource-bottleneck-analysis, temporal-horizon-mapping | | A creative set of directions | decision-criteria-weighting, creativity-plus-minus-interesting, constraint-hardness-testing | | A communication or framing analysis | writing-argument, narrative-frame-analysis, communication-clarity-audit | When the user selects a skill, run it on the situation context plus all accumulated output so far. Do not re-explain the situation from scratch — build on what prior steps established. If the user selects "Wrap up" at any point, jump to Step 5. --- ### Step 5: Synthesize After all steps complete, output a synthesis section: **What the full sequence revealed:** - List 3–5 findings that emerged from the workflow as a whole — insights that no single step showed on its own. **The key tension or trade-off:** - Name the central conflict the workflow exposed, if any. **Recommended next action:** - One concrete thing to do, decide, or communicate based on everything above. **What to revisit:** - If any assumption or finding in the workflow turned out to be load-bearing but uncertain, flag it here. --- ## Notes - **The goal drives the plan, not the problem type.** The same problem ("I need to decide X") could warrant different workflows depending on whether the goal is speed, thoroughness, buy-in, or ethical grounding. - **2–3 steps is often better than 5.** A tight two-skill sequence with strong chaining beats a sprawling five-step plan where the connections are thin. - **Adapt as you go.** If step 2 reveals the situation is fundamentally different from what step 1 assumed, redesign the remaining steps rather than running the original plan on stale premises. - **The handoff is the skill.** The value of this workflow is what transfers between steps. Never skip the explicit connection from one step to the next. - **If the user just wants one skill**, use the routing logic from the original human skill — present 3–4 options, let them pick, run it. Not every situation needs orchestration.