Ethical thinking
Structured thinking skills for AI agents: brainstorming, decision support, systems thinking, and strategy. Built for Claude Code & Cursor.
npx -y skills add ysskrishna/ai-agent-skills --skill ethical-thinkingAssembled 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
Use this skill when the user asks for ethical thinking (including naming it or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants a structured pass on values and harms—mapping stakeholders, tradeoffs, power asymmetries, harms and benefits, consent, justice, and fair process for a plan or product. Use for moral review, fairness or AI-ethics style questions, stakeholder harm scans, or should-we questions beyond pure legality, including indirect asks. Skip when they want legal advice as such, only neutral facts with no normative review requested, or implementation-only work with no values lens asked for.
The file declares its own license as MIT. That is the author’s claim about this one file, and it is not the same thing as the license GitHub reports for the repository, which is listed with the other numbers below.
SKILL.md
3.9 KB, as published. Nobody here has run it
Ethical Thinking
Ethics is about conflicts between legitimate goods. End with transparent tradeoffs, not false certainty.
How to run it with this skill: one clearly headed section per lens in this order: Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation.
Setup (run before starting)
In one short block:
- Ethical focal action — what is being considered?
- Default pass — Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation (state this line)
If affected parties or red lines are missing, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note missing stakeholder detail in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).
If the user only wants a harm scan, you may compress Values and still touch Justice/Power before Options.
The Lenses
Stakeholders
Who is affected (direct / indirect / future / non-human if ecologically relevant)? Vulnerability — describe dependence, cognitive load, or marginalization in plain language and one sentence on why that raises duty-of-care or caution (justify from context; do not stereotype).
Values
Which values are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, etc.)? Map value tension pairs: A vs B — why both matter here.
Harms / Benefits
Concrete harms and benefits; for each, one sentence on how plausible it is and under what conditions, plus reversibility in plain language when it matters. Distinguish predicted vs observed (if user gave history).
Justice / Power
Distribution of burdens and boons. Power asymmetry — who can say no, who bears error cost? Note procedural fairness (voice, consent, appeal).
Options
2+ ethically distinct paths (including do not proceed if plausible). For each:
Option: … — Value fit: … — Residual harm: … — Safeguards: …
Recommendation
State a preferred option if the analysis supports one, or conditional guidance. Include dissenting consideration — strongest reason against your recommendation. Add monitoring — what to watch if you proceed.
Execution Rules
- Do not demonize actors; focus on structures, incentives, and foreseeable effects.
- If values irreconcilably clash, say so — recommend process (deliberation, oversight) not fake unanimity.
- Never invent sensitive personal attributes about real people; stick to user-supplied facts.
- This skill is not legal advice; when law may bind, flag legal review needed and keep analysis non-authoritative on legal outcomes.
Checklist (verify before responding)
- Setup: focal action + default pass (note if harm-scan style compression)
- Stakeholders include indirect/future if relevant
- At least one explicit value tension pair
- Harms/benefits state plausibility in plain language (no Low/Med/High scale); options have safeguards
- Justice/power addresses distribution and voice/consent
- Recommendation names residual harm and dissenting consideration