s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

Name: s4h-constraint-hardness-testing
Author: human-avatar

205stars23forks

How to install s4h-constraint-hardness-testing?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Tests whether a stated constraint is real — distinguishing genuine limits from assumptions, habits, or politics dressed as facts. Triggers: 'is this really a constraint', 'challenge the assumption', 'who says we can't', 'is this actually fixed', 'test the constraint'.

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Constraint Hardness Testing
2
3	Organisations accumulate phantom constraints — rules that were real once and calcified, or
4	beliefs that were never tested, or someone's preference that got repeated until it sounded
5	like policy. This skill separates genuine limits from assumed ones before any energy is
6	spent working around or accepting them.
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Constraint
13	Write it exactly as it's been stated or assumed. Don't clean it up — the imprecision is
14	often where the phantom lives.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the specific constraint and the goal it is blocking before continuing. State what you've identified — the exact constraint as you understand it and the goal or action it prevents — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the constraint and the goal it blocks]. Is that right?"
18	- Header: "Framing"
19	- Options:
20	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
21	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
22	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Source It
25	Who said this constraint exists? When? Is the source a law or regulation, a signed contract,
26	a technical impossibility, a leadership decision, a team preference, or unknown? The source
27	determines the hardness ceiling.
28
29	Step 3: Consequence Test
30	What actually happens if this constraint is violated? State the consequence concretely. If
31	the answer is "I'm not sure" or "someone would be unhappy," the constraint is not hard.
32	Distinguish real consequences (fine, contract breach, system failure) from assumed ones
33	(pushback, awkwardness, political cost).
34
35	Step 4: Precedent Check
36	Has anyone tried to change or violate this constraint before? What happened? No precedent
37	often means no one has tested it — not that it can't be changed.
38
39	Step 5: Conditions Test
40	Under what circumstances would this constraint not apply? A truly hard constraint has no
41	exceptions. If you can find a scenario where it wouldn't hold, the constraint is softer
42	than stated.
43
44	Step 6: Classify
45	- Hard: real source, concrete consequence, no exceptions, precedent confirms
46	- Soft: real but negotiable, consequence is political or preferential
47	- Assumed: no clear source, untested consequence
48	- Outdated: was once hard, circumstances have changed
49
50	---
51
52	## Human Check-in
53
54	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
55
56	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
57	- Header: "Scope"
58	- Options:
59	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
60	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
61	- Real vs assumed verdict only — Classify each constraint without full analysis
62	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
63
64	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
65
66	## Output Format
67
68	Constraint as stated:
69	> [Exact wording]
70
71	Source: [Law/contract/technical/decision/preference/unknown] — [specific origin]
72
73	Consequence if violated:
74	> [Concrete statement] — Real / Assumed
75
76	Precedent: [What happened when tested, or "untested"]
77
78	Conditions where it wouldn't apply:
79	> [If any]
80
81	Classification: Hard / Soft / Assumed / Outdated
82
83	Recommended action:
84
85	\| Classification \| Action \|
86	\|----------------\|--------\|
87	\| Hard \| Accept — design around it \|
88	\| Soft \| Negotiate explicitly \|
89	\| Assumed \| Test it — ask the source directly \|
90	\| Outdated \| Challenge it — propose removal \|
91
92	---
93
94	## Notes
95
96	The most dangerous class is Assumed, because it looks like Hard. Before accepting any
97	constraint that cannot be sourced precisely, treat it as Assumed and test it — the cost of
98	testing is almost always lower than the cost of a permanent workaround.
99
100	---
101
102	## What's Next
103
104	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
105
106	- Question: "Constraints tested. What's next?"
107	- Header: "Next"
108	- Options:
109	- `/s4h-constraint-workaround-mapping` — Route around the hard constraints
110	- `/s4h-constraint-scope-reduction` — Reduce scope to avoid constraints that can't be bypassed
111	- `/s4h-decision-option-mapping` — See what options remain given hard and soft constraints
112	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type

s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

205stars23forks

View on GitHub

How to install s4h-constraint-hardness-testing?

human-avatar/skills-for-humanity/s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

$npx -y skills add human-avatar/skills-for-humanity --skill s4h-constraint-hardness-testing

Installs into the current project.

Summary

Files · 1

View on GitHub

SKILL.md

1	# Constraint Hardness Testing
2
3	Organisations accumulate phantom constraints — rules that were real once and calcified, or
4	beliefs that were never tested, or someone's preference that got repeated until it sounded
5	like policy. This skill separates genuine limits from assumed ones before any energy is
6	spent working around or accepting them.
7
8	---
9
10	## Your Process
11
12	Step 1: State the Constraint
13	Write it exactly as it's been stated or assumed. Don't clean it up — the imprecision is
14	often where the phantom lives.
15
16	Framing check: Confirm the specific constraint and the goal it is blocking before continuing. State what you've identified — the exact constraint as you understand it and the goal or action it prevents — in one sentence, then use `AskUserQuestion`:
17	- Question: "I'm reading this as: [your one-sentence framing of the constraint and the goal it blocks]. Is that right?"
18	- Header: "Framing"
19	- Options:
20	- Yes — proceed — framing is correct
21	- Adjust — one element is off; user will correct it before you continue
22	- Reframe — different situation than read; incorporate the correction before proceeding
23
24	Step 2: Source It
25	Who said this constraint exists? When? Is the source a law or regulation, a signed contract,
26	a technical impossibility, a leadership decision, a team preference, or unknown? The source
27	determines the hardness ceiling.
28
29	Step 3: Consequence Test
30	What actually happens if this constraint is violated? State the consequence concretely. If
31	the answer is "I'm not sure" or "someone would be unhappy," the constraint is not hard.
32	Distinguish real consequences (fine, contract breach, system failure) from assumed ones
33	(pushback, awkwardness, political cost).
34
35	Step 4: Precedent Check
36	Has anyone tried to change or violate this constraint before? What happened? No precedent
37	often means no one has tested it — not that it can't be changed.
38
39	Step 5: Conditions Test
40	Under what circumstances would this constraint not apply? A truly hard constraint has no
41	exceptions. If you can find a scenario where it wouldn't hold, the constraint is softer
42	than stated.
43
44	Step 6: Classify
45	- Hard: real source, concrete consequence, no exceptions, precedent confirms
46	- Soft: real but negotiable, consequence is political or preferential
47	- Assumed: no clear source, untested consequence
48	- Outdated: was once hard, circumstances have changed
49
50	---
51
52	## Human Check-in
53
54	Before proceeding, use the `AskUserQuestion` tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
55
56	- Question: "My read: [your 1–2 sentence interpretation]. How do you want to proceed?"
57	- Header: "Scope"
58	- Options:
59	- Full analysis — Complete all steps, reasoning shown throughout
60	- Key findings only — Bottom-line output, skip step-by-step detail
61	- Real vs assumed verdict only — Classify each constraint without full analysis
62	- Reframe — The read is off; correct it and the analysis will follow the corrected framing
63
64	Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
65
66	## Output Format
67
68	Constraint as stated:
69	> [Exact wording]
70
71	Source: [Law/contract/technical/decision/preference/unknown] — [specific origin]
72
73	Consequence if violated:
74	> [Concrete statement] — Real / Assumed
75
76	Precedent: [What happened when tested, or "untested"]
77
78	Conditions where it wouldn't apply:
79	> [If any]
80
81	Classification: Hard / Soft / Assumed / Outdated
82
83	Recommended action:
84
85	\| Classification \| Action \|
86	\|----------------\|--------\|
87	\| Hard \| Accept — design around it \|
88	\| Soft \| Negotiate explicitly \|
89	\| Assumed \| Test it — ask the source directly \|
90	\| Outdated \| Challenge it — propose removal \|
91
92	---
93
94	## Notes
95
96	The most dangerous class is Assumed, because it looks like Hard. Before accepting any
97	constraint that cannot be sourced precisely, treat it as Assumed and test it — the cost of
98	testing is almost always lower than the cost of a permanent workaround.
99
100	---
101
102	## What's Next
103
104	After delivering this output, use `AskUserQuestion` to offer the next move:
105
106	- Question: "Constraints tested. What's next?"
107	- Header: "Next"
108	- Options:
109	- `/s4h-constraint-workaround-mapping` — Route around the hard constraints
110	- `/s4h-constraint-scope-reduction` — Reduce scope to avoid constraints that can't be bypassed
111	- `/s4h-decision-option-mapping` — See what options remain given hard and soft constraints
112	- Done — Wrap up and synthesise what we have so far

People who liked this also viewed

6 picks

Type