Theory of constraints
Open-source thinking-framework skills that make rigorous reasoning executable for AI agents — first-principles, inversion, second-order thinking, Occam's razor, Bayesian reasoning. Built by deciqAI.
npx -y skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills --skill theory-of-constraintsAssembled from the repository path, not quoted from the project. Check it against their README if it does not work.
One thing to look at
- 3 stars3 stars. Stars are a popularity signal and not a quality one, but at this level it is likely that nobody has read this closely except its author, and you would be relying on your own review.
What its author says it does
Copied from the file, not written here
Activate when: user says 'everyone is working hard but results are flat', 'where is our bottleneck', 'we keep adding capacity but throughput doesn't improve', 'backlog piling up at one stage', 'Goldratt / TOC / Five Focusing Steps', or is designing a process-improvement initiative and wants to know where to invest. Do NOT activate when: the system is single-step with no dependencies; the constraint is purely demand-side and supply-side analysis is irrelevant. More: deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraints
SKILL.md
7.4 KB, ~1.6k tokens by cl100k_base, as published. Nobody here has run it
Theory of Constraints
Overview
Theory of Constraints (TOC) — Eliyahu Goldratt, 1984: throughput of any multi-step system is determined by its single bottleneck. Improving any other step produces no system-level gain. The Five Focusing Steps (Identify → Exploit → Subordinate → Elevate → Repeat) are the operational discipline.
Composes with pareto-principle (TOC = Pareto applied to throughput), feedback-loops, first-principles, and mvp (MVP design = TOC applied to validated learning).
When to Use
- System is producing less than desired throughput; "everyone is working hard" but results don't match effort
- Management improvement initiative or capacity investment is being planned
- Backlog or inventory accumulates at a specific step; local improvements don't translate system-wide
- Someone says "bottleneck," "throughput," "Goldratt," or "Theory of Constraints"
- Analyzing an AI capex / chip-supply-chain question — where the real limit is (e.g. GPU design vs. advanced packaging, HBM, or grid power), whether the "AI bubble" reflects a design race or a hidden physical bottleneck
Not when: single-step system; purely demand-side constraint; problem is strategic/psychological, not operational.
Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- Engine mode: user has a concrete throughput problem → run The Process directly.
- Coach mode: user is unfamiliar → guide step by step.
In Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.
- One-line: throughput is set by the slowest step — find it, fix it, ignore the rest until a new bottleneck emerges.
- Check fit: single-step system or demand-side constraint → TOC doesn't apply.
- Elicit their real case: what's the system? desired throughput? where does work-in-process pile up?
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Run The Process one step at a time: constraint? exploiting it? subordinating everything else? elevate?
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
- Close by naming the constraint, action plan, and re-identification schedule.
[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]
The Process
Step 1 — Identify: map all steps with capacity; find where WIP accumulates — that's the constraint. Step 2 — Exploit: max output from the constraint with no new investment (eliminate idle time, defects, distractions at that step). Step 3 — Subordinate: pace all other steps to the constraint's rate. Upstream: don't over-produce. Downstream: don't block. Retire local efficiency metrics that incentivize over-production. Step 4 — Elevate: if still binding after Steps 2-3, add capacity at the constraint (equipment, people, redesign). Highest ROI investment in the system. Step 5 — Repeat: bottleneck has moved. Return to Step 1.
Output: TOC Analysis
# TOC Analysis: <system>
## System map — steps, capacity per step, actual throughput, where WIP accumulates
## Constraint — bottleneck step + evidence (WIP buildup, idle downstream, output rate match)
## Exploit — changes to maximize current constraint output (no new investment)
## Subordinate — upstream rate limits, downstream coordination, metric changes, buffer plan
## Elevate — capacity investment at constraint, cost/benefit
## Re-identification — what to monitor, likely next constraint, re-apply schedule
→ Method in Action: Goldratt's The Goal (1984) and TOC's Lineage · Critical Chain Project Management (1997) → 2026 lens: The AI buildout's true constraint — packaging & power, not GPU design (2024–2026)
Pack: TOC by Domain
| Domain | Typical constraint | Common error | TOC fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| Manufacturing | Specific machine/workstation | Optimizing all stations | Subordinate rest to bottleneck |
| Software dev | Code review, QA, or deploy | Push devs to write faster | Limit WIP to constraint's rate |
| Sales funnel | Specific conversion step | Add more top-of-funnel leads | Fix conversion at the bottleneck |
| Hospital ops | OR scheduling or discharge | Add beds | Find true bottleneck (often discharge) |
| Project mgmt | Critical task or shared resource | Per-task safety padding | Critical chain; project-level buffer |
Applying It Well
- Identify the constraint with evidence, not intuition.
- Exploit and subordinate before elevating — most constraints yield without capital.
- Retire local efficiency metrics at non-constraints; they systematically mislead.
- Re-run Five Focusing Steps after every improvement — the constraint will move.
→ Primary sources: references/sources.md
Common Rationalizations
[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.
| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "We need to fix all the problems" | Fix the constraint only. Non-constraint improvements produce no system gain. |
| [D] "Everyone needs to work hard" | Max output at non-constraints creates inventory, not throughput. |
| [D] "100% utilization everywhere" | Mathematically false with variability. Non-constraints need slack. |
| [D] "Local efficiency = global efficiency" | False in any multi-step system. |
| [D] "We don't have a constraint" | Finite throughput = constraint exists. Find it. |
| [D] "More technology will solve it" | Only if it addresses the constraint. |
| → Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern | What went wrong and why |
Red Flags
- Diagnosis for throughput shortfall is "everyone needs to work harder"
- Capacity investment spread across multiple steps without constraint identification
- Inventory visibly accumulates in front of one step; no one flags it
- Local productivity metrics tracked without aggregation to system throughput
- Previous TOC gains have decayed (new constraint unmanaged)
Verification
- System map drawn with capacity at each step
- Constraint identified with evidence (not intuition)
- Five Focusing Steps applied in order (exploit before elevate)
- Non-constraint metrics that contradict system throughput retired
- Next constraint identified after improvement; re-application scheduled
Part of deciqAI Knowledge Skills — 233 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraints · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.
Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/theory-of-constraints.json
What ships with it: 4 files
24.6 KB alongside SKILL.md
examples/
references/
- sources.md2.2 KB
Gives 0 of the 12 instructions most performance cost skills give in ~1.6k tokens
Counted across 803 of the 1,058 authors here whose files we hold, read 2026-08-07
- Keep skill files under 500 lines or tokensin 82 of 803, across 16 files
- Use imperative form in instructionsin 80 of 803, across 9 files
- Draft assertions while test runs are in progressin 75 of 803, across 9 files
- Create two to three realistic test promptsin 74 of 803, across 9 files
- Write skill descriptions to be pushyin 72 of 803, across 7 files
- Save test cases to evals JSONin 72 of 803, across 6 files
- Ask questions about edge cases and input formatsin 72 of 803, across 7 files
- Save timing data immediately when runs completein 70 of 803, across 5 files
- Include all trigger conditions in the skill descriptionin 69 of 803, across 3 files
- Launch all test runs in a single turn or simultaneouslyin 69 of 803, across 3 files
- Capture intent before writing a skillin 67 of 803, across 1 file
- Import directly instead of barrel filesin 52 of 803, across 15 files
Said here and by no other author read
- exploit the constraint before elevating it
- retire local efficiency metrics at non-constraints
- re-run the five focusing steps after every improvement
- draw a system map with capacity per step
- identify the likely next constraint
- advance one coaching step at a time
Grouped from the skills themselves: near-identical wordings counted once, and counted by distinct author, so one author publishing three of these counts once. Length counted with cl100k_base; the agent that loads this file may tokenize it differently.