Update to 思考を整理する7段の階段

{
  "name": "thinking-staircase",
  "description": "Organize ambiguous thoughts, disagreements, proposals, meetings, decisions, or emotional reactions with the seven-level Thinking Staircase: reaction, observation, causality, validation, self-check, structure, and strategic operation. Use when the user asks to sort out their thinking, identify why a discussion is misaligned, determine which level a statement occupies, expose missing assumptions or bias, translate structural insight into concrete action, move between abstraction and execution, or explicitly mentions 「思考を整理する7段の階段」「何段目」「普段6」「思考の段差」or the Thinking Staircase.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 435
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "assets/icon.svg",
      "size_in_bytes": 488
    },
    {
      "relative_path": "references/model.md",
      "size_in_bytes": 7019
    }
  ],
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: thinking-staircase\ndescription: \"Organize ambiguous thoughts, disagreements, proposals, meetings, decisions, or emotional reactions with the seven-level Thinking Staircase: reaction, observation, causality, validation, self-check, structure, and strategic operation. Use when the user asks to sort out their thinking, identify why a discussion is misaligned, determine which level a statement occupies, expose missing assumptions or bias, translate structural insight into concrete action, move between abstraction and execution, or explicitly mentions 「思考を整理する7段の階段」「何段目」「普段6」「思考の段差」or the Thinking Staircase.\"\n---\n\n# Thinking Staircase\n\nUse the framework as a navigation system, not a ranking or personality test. Read [references/model.md](references/model.md) when definitions, classification, translation, or a full seven-level analysis are needed.\n\n## Onboard a first-time user\n\nIf the user invokes the skill without providing a substantive issue, do not run an empty seven-level analysis. Briefly explain that the skill separates facts, interpretations, emotions, causes, assumptions, structure, and action. Then offer these starter requests in the user's language and invite them to paste a real situation:\n\n- \"会議が噛み合わない原因を、7段の階段で整理して\"\n- \"この解決策は、どの前提を飛ばしている？\"\n- \"感情と事実を分けて、今やることを整理して\"\n- \"構造的には分かったので、具体策まで降ろして\"\n- \"私と相手は、それぞれ何段目から話している？\"\n\nKeep this onboarding compact. Do not present the framework as a diagnostic test or ask the user to select a fixed personal level.\n\n## Establish the task\n\nIdentify the user's actual need before expanding the framework:\n\n- **Organize:** turn an unclear concern into a coherent issue and decision.\n- **Locate:** identify the level currently driving a statement or conflict.\n- **Translate:** bridge people speaking from different levels.\n- **Deepen:** move from observation or linear causality toward validation, self-check, or structure.\n- **Descend:** convert structural or strategic thinking into facts, choices, owners, and next actions.\n- **Reset:** interrupt an emotional automatic reaction and restore deliberate thought.\n\nIf there is an immediate physical danger or a genuinely seconds-sensitive event, prioritize the necessary action. Do not delay action to complete the framework.\n\n## Separate epistemic status first\n\nBefore interpreting, distinguish:\n\n1. Confirmed facts explicitly supplied by the user\n2. The user's interpretation or causal theory\n3. Emotions, intuitions, and desired outcomes\n4. Unknowns that materially affect the conclusion\n\nNever invent a fact, motive, cause, evidence, or next action that the input cannot support. Mark a plausible explanation as a hypothesis. Treat Level 5 observations about bias or motive as questions or tentative hypotheses, not psychological diagnoses.\n\n## Select levels rather than filling a template\n\nUse only the levels that improve the answer. Do not force seven headings into every response.\n\n- For a raw emotional message, begin with Levels 1–2 and establish facts before analysis.\n- For a proposed solution, test Levels 3–5 before broadening to Level 6.\n- For a structural insight, use Level 7 to decide timing and descend to Level 2 or 3 for communication and execution.\n- For a disagreement, identify each side's level, preserve what is valid in both, then translate their scope and time horizon.\n- For a full audit explicitly requested by the user, work through Levels 1–7 in order.\n\n## Run the reasoning sequence\n\nAsk internally, and show only the questions useful to the user:\n\n1. **Reaction:** What was the immediate impulse or conclusion?\n2. **Observation:** What verifiable event or pattern is present?\n3. **Causality:** What mechanism could connect cause and result?\n4. **Validation:** Are the premise, source, comparison, sample, and counterevidence sound?\n5. **Self-check:** What might the thinker prefer to believe because of experience, interest, identity, fear, or urgency?\n6. **Structure:** What relationships, incentives, feedback loops, constraints, or delays repeatedly generate the event?\n7. **Operation:** Which level is useful now? What should be decided, tested, delayed, communicated, or acted on?\n\nAt Level 7, explicitly distinguish:\n\n- Immediate and deferred decisions\n- Reversible tests and irreversible commitments\n- Short-term containment and structural correction\n- What requires more evidence and what can safely begin now\n\n## Translate across levels\n\nWhen people are misaligned:\n\n1. State the valid concern on each side without caricature.\n2. Name the difference in scope, evidence threshold, or time horizon.\n3. Connect the levels with an \"and,\" not a false either/or.\n4. Produce a combined formulation that separates immediate action from structural work.\n\nExample pattern:\n\n> The concrete proposal may help in the short term. The structural concern is that it may not remove the condition that recreates the problem. Treat the proposal as containment, and evaluate the structural correction separately.\n\n## Return an economical answer\n\nDefault to this compact structure when useful:\n\n1. **Core:** one or two sentences stating what the issue actually is\n2. **Current level:** the dominant level and the evidence for that classification\n3. **Missing move:** the next level or downward translation that would improve the decision\n4. **Reorganized thought:** a concise, coherent formulation in the user's voice\n5. **Action:** what to decide or do now, what to verify, and what to defer\n\nFor a full seven-level audit, use a table with columns `Level`, `What the input says`, `What is missing`, and `Useful question`. Keep claims traceable to the input.\n\n## Guardrails\n\n- Do not rank a person's intelligence, education, maturity, or worth by level.\n- Do not describe the seven levels as an established psychological developmental hierarchy.\n- Do not assume higher is always better. Speed and simplicity can be appropriate.\n- Distinguish adaptive Level 1 action from an emotional collapse into automatic reaction.\n- Do not let Level 4 become reflexive opposition or endless skepticism.\n- Do not let Level 5 become self-denial or amateur diagnosis.\n- Do not let Level 6 erase an individual person, immediate harm, or executable action.\n- Do not let Level 7 become sophisticated procrastination.\n- End by descending to the level at which the intended reader can understand and act.\n"
}