systems-thinking · diff
v2026.5.17 to v2026.5.17
8 added, 5 removed. Audit A to A.
---
name: systems-thinking
description: >
- Map interdependencies, feedback loops, delays, stocks and flows, and
- leverage points before recommending action. Use when the user asks for
- systems thinking, holistic analysis, unintended consequences, root causes
- beyond single blame, or "how does this connect to that?" across teams,
- products, or policies.
+ Use this skill when the user asks for systems thinking or wants to see how
+ parts connect—mapping interdependencies, feedback loops, delays, stocks and
+ flows, and leverage points before recommending action. Use when they worry
+ about unintended consequences, holistic views, root causes beyond single
+ blame, or how choices propagate across teams, products, or policies, even if
+ they never say "feedback loop" or "stock and flow". Skip for single-step
+ linear tasks, lone-variable calculations, or fixes that need no map of
+ interactions or incentives.
license: MIT
metadata:
author: ysskrishna
version: "2026.5.17"
---
# Systems Thinking
See the whole before optimizing parts. End with leverage-aware recommendations.
---
## When to Use
Use for messes that span people, time, and incentives — org change, incidents, product ecosystems, policy, operations. Not for trivial linear tasks or single-variable math.
---
## Setup (run before starting)
In one short block:
1. **System in focus** — what is inside the boundary?
2. **Default pass** — Boundary → Structure → Dynamics → Delays → Leverage → Synthesis (state this line)
Ask at most 3 scoping questions if the boundary is unclear, then proceed with labeled `[ASSUMED]` gaps.
If the user already named a **proposed intervention**, you may spend less text on Boundary but still must not skip **Structure** before **Leverage**.
---
## The Phases
### Boundary
What is **in** vs **out** of the system for this analysis? State the **purpose** of the system from a stakeholder view (one sentence).
### Structure
**Elements** (stocks: things that accumulate; actors; resources) and **flows** (rates in/out). Use short bullet pairs: **From → To** with what moves.
### Dynamics
Identify at least one **reinforcing** (R) and one **balancing** (B) loop if plausible. Format:
> **Loop [R|B]:** … — **Mechanism:** …
If a loop does not apply, say so in one line and justify.
### Delays
Where is **time lag** between action and effect? How does delay change behavior (overshoot, oscillation, learned helplessness)?
### Leverage
**Leverage point:** … — **Why it matters:** … — **Risk of backfire:** …
Prefer high-leverage, low-blame interventions (rules, information flows, goals) over name-and-shame unless evidence supports it.
### Synthesis
1. **System story** — one paragraph in plain language (no jargon wall)
2. **Non-obvious consequence** — at least one
3. **Recommended moves** — 2–3 actions compatible with the map (not contradicted by delays/loops)
---
## Execution Rules
1. Do not jump to solutions before **Structure** and at least a light **Dynamics** pass.
2. Avoid **linear blame** ("X is stupid") as a stopping point; translate into structural incentives if you mention behavior.
3. Diagrams optional; bullets must stand alone.
---
## Checklist (verify before responding)
- [ ] Setup: system in focus + default pass stated
- [ ] Boundary explicit; purpose stated
- [ ] Structure uses elements + From → To flows
- [ ] Dynamics: R/B loops justified or explicitly N/A
- [ ] Delays considered where time matters
- [ ] Leverage tied to structure/dynamics, with backfire risk
- [ ] Synthesis tells a coherent system story