agentsclimarketplace

Meta cognition

Skill aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team/skills/meta-cognition

14 AI executives powered by legendary minds (Musk/Buffett/Simons/Feynman) — deploy your virtual C-Suite in one git clone.

Install
npx -y skills add aAAaqwq/AGI-Super-Team --skill meta-cognition

Assembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.

What its author says it does

Copied from the file, not written here

Meta-cognitive framing for analyze-before-doing, ownership routing, risk gating, minimum-closure planning, and retrospective extraction in multi-agent work. Use when the user says 先分析再做 / 先别动手 / 先判断 / 先定方案, when work spans multiple agents or needs dispatch/orchestration, when CEO-style delegation or group command requires owner+deadline+closure, when abnormal sessions/cron/jobs/runs need real follow-through instead of status-only reporting, or when a task needs strategy, PRD, first-principles thinking, verification, and postmortem/retro.

SKILL.md

8.2 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it

Meta-Cognition

Use this skill to turn a vague request, anomaly, or project into a governed execution loop.

This skill is for judgment before action and closure after action. It is especially useful for CEO-style coordination where the main risk is not lack of tools, but wrong framing, wrong ownership, missing verification, or shallow status reporting.

Core protocol

For any non-trivial task, produce these six sections before major execution:

  1. 问题本质 / Problem Essence
  2. 责任归属 / Ownership Routing
  3. 风险等级 / Risk Gate
  4. 最小闭环 / Minimum Closure
  5. 执行动作 / Action Plan
  6. 验证与复盘 / Verification & Retro

If the user asks for a fast answer, compress the six sections into short bullets instead of skipping them.

When to apply strict mode

Use full strict mode when any of the following is true:

  • The request affects money, production systems, accounts, auth, deployments, or public output.
  • The task spans multiple agents or requires dispatch.
  • The user explicitly says “先分析再做”, “别急着开发”, “复盘一下”, or asks for strategy.
  • You detect stale sessions, zombie jobs, aborted runs, or cron drift that needs resolution.
  • You are about to claim a task is done and fresh verification matters.

In strict mode, do not jump from detection straight to execution. Frame → route → gate → act → verify.

Step 1 — Problem Essence

Rewrite the request into the real problem.

Answer:

  • What is the surface request?
  • What is the underlying business/operational problem?
  • What would count as success in one sentence?
  • What is still unknown?

Rules:

  • Strip hype and vague labels.
  • Prefer operational language over abstract buzzwords.
  • If the request is probably misframed, say so directly.

Step 2 — Ownership Routing

Decide who should do the work.

Answer:

  • Which agent owns the core capability?
  • Which supporting agents, if any, should assist?
  • Should the CEO/main session coordinate only, or also execute?
  • Can independent sub-tasks run in parallel?

Rules:

  • CEO should prefer routing and quality control over doing specialized execution.
  • Route by core capability, not by convenience.
  • If a task crosses functions, split it into separate deliverables.

For detailed routing heuristics, read references/ownership-routing.md.

Step 3 — Risk Gate

Assign a risk level before acting.

Use three levels:

  • P0 / High risk — money movement, prod changes, auth, data loss, public posting, destructive actions
  • P1 / Medium risk — important but reversible config/code/content changes
  • P2 / Low risk — read-only analysis, drafts, internal notes, low-impact summaries

For every task, state:

  • Risk level
  • Main failure mode
  • Whether user confirmation is required
  • What should be protected from overreach

Rules:

  • For high-risk work, default conservative.
  • “Can do” is not enough; ask whether it should be done now.

Step 4 — Minimum Closure

Define the smallest end-to-end result that counts as actually finished.

Examples:

  • Not “cron checked”, but “cron updated, effective model confirmed, drift explained”.
  • Not “agent notified”, but “agent received, responded, and delivered or was escalated”.
  • Not “API built”, but “fresh tests passed and real request returned required fields”.

State:

  • Deliverable
  • Verification method
  • Evidence expected
  • What remains out of scope

For closure patterns, read references/closure-loop.md.

Step 5 — Action Plan

Only now decide what to do.

Use one of four modes:

  • Act now — enough clarity, low/moderate risk, tools available
  • Dispatch — another agent should own execution
  • Ask first — critical missing context or approval needed
  • Defer — low ROI or blocked

When dispatching:

  • Give a clear objective
  • Specify output location/format
  • Specify how completion should be reported
  • Define timeout/escalation expectations

If useful, use this structure:

  • Objective
  • Owner
  • Inputs
  • Output
  • Deadline / next check
  • Escalation path

Step 6 — Verification & Retro

Before saying “done”, check:

  • What was verified just now?
  • What evidence supports the claim?
  • What is still assumed rather than proven?
  • What lesson should become memory, SOP, skill, or cron?

Never collapse “looks good” into “done”.

If the task produced a reusable lesson, explicitly propose one of:

  • Update memory
  • Update skill
  • Update SOP/checklist
  • Update cron/monitoring
  • No durable lesson

For retro extraction prompts, read references/retro-prompts.md.

Default output template

Use this template unless the user asks for a different format:

## 1. 问题本质
- 表层需求:
- 真问题:
- 成功标准:
- 未知项:

## 2. 责任归属
- 主负责:
- 协同:
- CEO 是否亲自执行:
- 是否并行:

## 3. 风险等级
- Level:P0 / P1 / P2
- 失败模式:
- 是否需确认:

## 4. 最小闭环
- 交付物:
- 验证方式:
- 完成证据:
- 当前不做:

## 5. 执行动作
- 模式:Act / Dispatch / Ask / Defer
- 下一步:

## 6. 验证与复盘
- 已验证:
- 未验证:
- 可沉淀项:

Anti-patterns

Do not do these:

  • Jump straight into execution when the request is still ambiguous.
  • Treat status reporting as problem resolution.
  • Keep work in the CEO session when a specialist agent should own it.
  • Claim completion without fresh evidence.
  • Inflate low-confidence guesses into decisions.
  • Leave anomalies as “known issue” without owner, next step, or closure condition.

Trigger phrases

This skill is a strong match for prompts like:

中文高频触发

  • “先分析再做” / “先别动手” / “先别急着写代码”
  • “先判断一下” / “先定方案” / “先想清楚再做”
  • “帮我拆一下这事” / “这个事情怎么收口” / “给个最小闭环”
  • “这个该派给谁” / “谁负责” / “你来协调一下” / “拉多 agent 一起做”
  • “CEO 指令” / “CEO 派发” / “军团任务” / “帮我调度一下” / “安排下去并盯闭环”
  • “异常怎么处理” / “为什么又炸了” / “为什么监控到了却没解决” / “把这个事故复盘一下” / “给我复盘”
  • “别只报状态” / “我要结果,不要过程” / “给我一个能验收的版本”
  • “先看风险” / “值不值得做” / “要不要现在做” / “先评估 ROI / 风险”
  • “帮我定 owner / deadline / 验收标准” / “这个事情怎么推进” / “下一步谁来做”

English triggers

  • “analyze first, then do” / “think first” / “frame this before acting”
  • “who should own this?” / “route this to the right agent” / “orchestrate this”
  • “give me a closure plan” / “what is the minimum end-to-end closure?”
  • “don’t just give status, close the loop” / “turn this into a verified outcome”
  • “postmortem this” / “retro this” / “why did this fail?”
  • “dispatch this across agents” / “multi-agent coordination” / “CEO delegation”

群聊/命令式说法

  • “你先别做,先判断”
  • “先出分析框架再执行”
  • “去查清楚再汇报”
  • “先给结论、风险、owner、下一步”
  • “盯到闭环,不要只催办”
  • “这事给我复盘并沉淀 SOP / memory / skill”

Resource map

Read bundled references only when needed:

  • references/ownership-routing.md — choose the right agent and decide parallelism
  • references/closure-loop.md — convert detection into verifiable closure
  • references/retro-prompts.md — extract durable lessons without noise

Keep looking

Skills are one crate of 328,083. Ordering is by how many stacks a row turns up in, so the top of any crate is what has actually been picked rather than what has the most stars.