Token导航 LogoToken导航TokenDH.com
研究检索只读github未标认证来源可访问许可证需确认审计通过

cynefin-frameworkCYNEFIN 框架

Agent Skill

cynefin-framework 用于查找、检索和筛选相关信息,适合在 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI 中需要根据关键词、任务场景或来源线索快速定位候选结果时使用。可结合来源仓库、安装命令和原始 README 继续核验具体用法。安装前建议确认权限范围、维护状态,以及是否会触发联网、命令执行或文件读写。

总安装

456

周安装

19

GitHub Stars

6

下载量

152
CodexClaudeCursorGemini CLI

安装说明

本站只整理中文说明和来源信息,不托管安装包,也不代用户安装。

GitHub

来源数

2

许可证

unknown

最后核验

2026-05-01

来源状态

来源可访问

安装方式

通过对话安装

复制提示词发给支持本地命令或 Skills 的 AI 助手,先确认命令和权限,再让它执行。

请帮我安装这个 Agent Skill:cynefin-framework(CYNEFIN 框架)
来源仓库:https://github.com/andurilcode/skills
仓库路径:skills/cynefin-framework
安装命令:
npx skills add https://github.com/andurilcode/skills --skill cynefin-framework
安装前请先检查当前环境是否支持对应 CLI,并向我确认将要执行的命令、安装目录、联网范围和文件读写权限;确认后再执行。

命令行安装

复制命令到本机终端执行。该命令会通过 npx skills 从第三方来源获取 Skill;本站只展示命令,不托管安装包,也不自动执行。

skills.shnpx skills
npx skills add https://github.com/andurilcode/skills --skill cynefin-framework

简介

cynefin-framework 提供五域分类法用于问题诊断与响应策略选择。

  • 适用于简单、繁杂、复杂、混沌与无序等不同情境判断。
  • 核心原则是先分类后行动,防止用错方法加剧问题。
  • 使用前应收集足够情境信息,避免主观臆断影响分类准确性。
  • 适用宿主包括 Codex、Claude、Cursor、Gemini CLI,接入前应确认版本、权限和运行环境要求。

SKILL.md

Cynefin Framework

Core principle: Before applying any solution, classify the problem domain. The right action in one domain is the wrong action in another. Misclassifying the domain is one of the most common causes of failed interventions.


The Five Domains

1. 🟢 Clear (formerly "Simple")

Relationship: Cause and effect are obvious to everyone. Nature: Best practices exist and are well-known. Approach: Sense → Categorize → Respond

  • Apply the known best practice
  • Automate where possible
  • Don't over-complicate it

Signs you're here: The answer is obvious. Anyone competent would do the same thing.

Danger: Complacency. Clear domains can suddenly become chaotic if conditions change and nobody noticed.

Examples: Resetting a password, deploying a known-working config, following a checklist.


2. 🔵 Complicated

Relationship: Cause and effect exist but require analysis or expertise to see. Nature: Multiple right answers exist; good practice (not best practice). Approach: Sense → Analyze → Respond

  • Bring in experts or do analysis
  • Evaluate trade-offs between valid options
  • Allow time for assessment before acting

Signs you're here: You need an expert, but once they analyze it, the answer becomes clear. There's a knowable right answer.

Danger: Expert overconfidence. Experts can mistake complicated for clear and stop questioning assumptions.

Examples: Software architecture decisions, performance tuning, medical diagnosis, legal strategy.


3. 🟡 Complex

Relationship: Cause and effect are only visible in retrospect. You can't predict outcomes. Nature: Emergent practice — no "right answer" exists in advance. Approach: Probe → Sense → Respond

  • Run safe-to-fail experiments (small, reversible, parallel)
  • Amplify what works, dampen what doesn't
  • Expect and embrace emergence
  • Don't plan for a single outcome

Signs you're here: Experts disagree. Past data is unreliable. The system involves human behavior, social dynamics, or high interconnectedness.

Danger: Applying complicated or clear approaches (best practices, expert analysis, big-bang solutions) to complex problems. This is the most common mistake.

Examples: Product-market fit discovery, organizational culture change, user behavior patterns, AI system behavior, team dynamics.


4. 🔴 Chaotic

Relationship: No discernible cause and effect. The system is in crisis. Nature: Novel practice — act first to stabilize. Approach: Act → Sense → Respond

  • Take immediate action to reduce harm and establish order
  • Don't wait for analysis — the situation is changing faster than analysis can help
  • Move to complex or complicated once stability is achieved

Signs you're here: Crisis. System is actively failing. No time for deliberation.

Danger: Staying in chaotic mode too long. Once the crisis is contained, move to a more deliberate approach.

Examples: Production outage, security breach, public crisis, team breakdown.


5. ⚫ Disorder (the center)

Relationship: Unknown. You don't know which domain you're in. Approach: Break the situation into parts and classify each one.

  • Multiple people will interpret the situation through their own domain lens (causing conflict)
  • Get clarity before acting

Output Format

🗺️ Domain Classification

  • Assessed domain: Clear / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic / Disorder
  • Confidence: High / Medium / Low
  • Key signals that led to this classification
  • Alternative interpretation: Could this be misclassified? What would that imply?

⚠️ Domain Mismatch Check

Is the user (or current plan) applying an approach from the wrong domain?

Current approachActual domainMismatch risk
Best practice playbookComplexHigh — will fail
Big analysis, single solutionChaoticHigh — too slow
Experiments / probingClearWaste of time

🎯 Recommended Approach

Based on the domain:

  • Clear: Apply best practice [name it]. Consider automating.
  • Complicated: Engage expert analysis. Evaluate trade-offs between [option A] and [option B].
  • Complex: Design 2–3 safe-to-fail experiments. Define what "amplify" and "dampen" signals look like.
  • Chaotic: Act immediately on [specific stabilizing action]. Reassess domain once stable.

🔁 Domain Transitions to Watch

  • Is this domain shifting? (e.g., a complicated situation becoming complex due to new uncertainty)
  • What would cause the situation to move into chaos?
  • What's the path toward clear once this is resolved?

Practical Heuristics

  • If experts disagree → probably Complex, not Complicated
  • If it involves people and behavior at scale → probably Complex
  • If it's urgent and breaking → probably Chaotic; act first
  • If there's a known playbook → probably Clear or Complicated
  • If past solutions stopped working → domain may have shifted

The Most Common Mistake

Treating a Complex problem as Complicated: hiring a consultant to define "the right answer" and then executing a big plan — when the system is actually emergent and unpredictable. The result: the plan doesn't work, more consultants are hired, the plan gets bigger, it still doesn't work.

Fix: Run small experiments instead. Let patterns emerge. Amplify what works.

适合场景

01

用户想查找某类 Agent Skill 时

02

需要根据任务场景推荐可安装能力包时

03

需要对比不同来源的安装命令和来源信息时

能力概览

能力 1

按任务关键词查找相关 Skills

能力 2

展示可复制的安装命令

能力 3

保留来源站点、仓库和原始说明,方便继续核验

能力 4

展示第三方安全扫描或审计结果

安装后应在对应宿主中按原始 README 的触发条件使用;具体调用方式请以来源页面和 README 为准。

平台分布

Codex

38.34%
按下载量换算58

Claude

27.75%
按下载量换算42

Cursor

20.63%
按下载量换算31

Gemini CLI

10.39%
按下载量换算16

安全审计

Gen Agent Trust Hub

通过

Socket

通过

Snyk

通过

权限和风险

只读

该 Skill 主要提供规则、说明或参考内容,本身偏只读;真正读写文件、联网或执行命令仍取决于宿主 Agent 的任务。

安装前确认

本站仅展示第三方公开信息,不托管安装包,不提供自动安装或运行环境。安装前应自行审查源码、依赖和命令行为。当前只有一个来源,正式发布前建议补源仓库或其他目录站核验。

来源信息

继续浏览同类 Skills