Second order

<!-- DO NOT EDIT — generated from shared/skills/second-order/SKILL.md by sync-content.py -->

Focused Second-Order Mode

You are running in focused-second-order mode. Execute only the procedure below and produce only its canonical output sections — do not run the full 5-phase first-principles analysis. Skip Step 0 technique selection; the user has already chosen this technique by invoking the slash command directly.

When to reach for this

Use second-order thinking after Phase 4 (Reason Upward) produces a first-order conclusion, before Phase 5 (Validate), to extend the derivation chain by enumerating the consequences that conclusion sets in motion. Downstream effects are where most reasoning quietly fails.

Decision rule — second-order vs. inversion: second-order is the positive-direction pass on a conclusion ("if it holds, what follows?"); inversion is the negative-direction pass ("what would have to be true for it to fail?"). Run them as a pair: inversion surfaces silent preconditions, second-order surfaces silent consequences.

Decision rule — second-order vs. trade-off analysis: when 2nd-order effects diverge across two or more candidate options, the decision becomes a selection problem. Hand off to trade-off analysis, which locks criteria and weights before scoring so divergent effects can be compared without reverse-engineering the answer.

Not a good fit: stress-testing a claim's preconditions — use inversion. Tracing backward to a root cause — use 5-Whys.

---

Procedure

1. State the first-order conclusion precisely. One sentence, no hedges. The sharper the conclusion, the sharper the consequences it generates.

2. Enumerate 2nd-order consequences. List the direct downstream effects of the conclusion holding — changes in behaviour, system state, or surrounding context once it is acted on. Aim for at least three; include adverse effects alongside favourable ones.

3. Enumerate 3rd-order consequences. For each 2nd-order effect, list its own downstream effects. Same discipline: at least three across the layer, adverse alongside favourable.

4. Apply the stopping rule. Default depth is the 3rd order; stop earlier when the next layer becomes non-actionable speculation. Each additional order multiplies branching and dilutes evidentiary grounding — past the 3rd order, the chain is usually speculation dressed as deduction.

5. Check for undermining contradictions. For each enumerated effect, ask whether it contradicts a Phase 3 Ground Truth or invalidates a premise the first-order conclusion depended on. Mark contradicting effects — they are the load-bearing output of the tool.

6. Route the result. Non-contradicting effects extend the Phase 4 Derivation Chain as additional order-marked steps (→[2nd], →[3rd]). Any contradicting effect routes the conclusion back to Phase 2 (Challenge Assumptions) — never directly to Phase 3 or past Phase 2.

---

Worked mini-example

First-order conclusion: "Adopting feature flags for all new product changes will let us release continuously without coordinating deploys."

• 2nd-order consequences:
  • Long-lived branches disappear; branch-by-abstraction becomes default
  • Flag-configuration surface grows linearly with in-flight features
  • QA shifts from pre-deploy gates to in-production flag-off verification
• 3rd-order consequences:
  • Engineers treat flags as permanent config — flag debt accumulates
  • On-call must correlate the active flag set at failure time, not the deployed version alone
  • Analytics must segment every metric by flag state, or aggregates mix behaviours silently
• Undermining check: the "flag debt accumulates" effect contradicts the Phase 3 Ground Truth that the team retires flags promptly.
• Revised conclusion: route back to Phase 2 — the conclusion holds only if a flag-retirement policy is verified as an untested belief.

---

Failure modes

Confusing speculation with deduction at the nth order. As depth increases, each step's evidentiary basis weakens; treating a 3rd-order effect as derived rather than guessed is the most common silent failure. Mark each layer's evidentiary status and downgrade chain confidence.

Recursing past actionable depth. Past the 3rd order — or past where consequences stop being actionable — additional layers add no decision value and crowd out attention. Stop when the stopping rule fires.

Cherry-picking favourable 2nd-order effects while ignoring adverse ones. Enumerating only consequences that support the conclusion converts a stress test into a confirmation exercise. Enumerate adverse effects with the same discipline as favourable ones.

---

Handoff

Non-contradicting 2nd- and 3rd-order effects extend the relevant Phase 4 Derivation Chain in place as additional order-marked steps (→[2nd], →[3rd]), carrying the same evidentiary discipline as the steps that produced the first-order conclusion — the canonical extension form is defined in output-template.md §4 ("Converting structured-technique outputs into chains").

Any effect that contradicts a Ground Truth (Phase 3) or undermines a premise the first-order conclusion depended on routes the conclusion back to Phase 2 (Challenge Assumptions) for re-challenging — not directly to Phase 3 or past Phase 2. The contradicting effect becomes the evidence triggering a new untested belief row, mirroring how inversion's preconditions enter Phase 2 from the other direction.

For the negative-direction counterpart, pair with inversion: second-order traces downstream consequences, inversion surfaces upstream preconditions. When divergent 2nd-order effects across options force a selection, hand off to trade-off analysis.

---

If a fuller analysis is needed afterward, invoke the main first-principles agent with this output as Known ground truths.