executing-plans
executing-plans
Use when executing an implementation plan in the current session as the implementer yourself — your human partner chose inline execution, or no subagent tool is available
self-improving-cognitionSystematic improvement of thinking patterns, decision quality, problem-solving abilities, and mental performance. Use when noticing cognitive biases, making important decisions, solving complex problems, or wanting to enhance mental clarity and effectiveness.
Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs
Structured approach to cognitive enhancement through measurable tracking of thinking patterns, bias identification, decision analysis, and mental skill development. Transforms vague "think better" into specific, improvable cognitive competencies.
| Situation | Action |
|---|---|
| Making important decision | Log decision context, alternatives, reasoning, track outcome |
| Noticing cognitive bias | Identify bias type, record instance, develop correction strategy |
| Solving complex problem | Document problem space, approaches tried, breakthrough insights |
| Feeling mentally foggy | Track mental clarity factors, identify patterns, adjust routines |
| Learning new complex concept | Map understanding, identify gaps, track mastery progression |
Append to .learnings/cognition/BASELINE.md:
## [COG-YYYYMMDD-001] Cognitive Baseline Assessment
**Assessed**: 2026-03-12T10:00:00Z
**Overall Cognitive Fitness**: 6.8/10
**Strengths**: Logical reasoning, Metacognition
**Areas for Improvement**: Sustained attention, Creative fluency
### Dimension Scores (1-10)
1. **Attention & Focus**: 5.5/10
- Sustained: 25 minutes average
- Selective: 6/10 (easily distracted by notifications)
- Recovery: 3 minutes after interruption
2. **Memory & Recall**: 6.0/10
- Working: 5±2 items (digit span)
- Long-term: 7/10 (good factual recall)
- Speed: 2.3 seconds average retrieval
3. **Logical Reasoning**: 8.0/10
- Deductive: 85% accuracy
- Inductive: 8/10 (strong pattern recognition)
- Fallacy Detection: 75% accuracy
4. **Creative Thinking**: 5.0/10
- Fluency: 12 ideas/10 minutes
- Originality: 4/10 (mostly conventional)
- Connections: 3 unusual associations/ session
5. **Metacognition**: 7.5/10
- Accuracy: 80% (self-assessment vs. performance)
- Strategy Awareness: 8/10 (knows thinking processes)
- Error Detection: 7/10 (catches 70% of own errors)
### Cognitive Bias Inventory
- **Confirmation Bias**: Moderate (seeks confirming evidence)
- **Anchoring**: High (influenced by initial information)
- **Availability Heuristic**: Moderate (overweights recent examples)
- **Planning Fallacy**: High (underestimates time requirements)
- **Sunk Cost Fallacy**: Low (willing to cut losses)
### Environmental & Lifestyle Factors
- **Sleep**: 6.5/10 quality, 7 hours average
- **Nutrition**: 7/10 (balanced, but afternoon sugar)
- **Exercise**: 5/10 (3x/week, inconsistent)
- **Stress**: 6/10 (moderate work pressure)
- **Mental Stimulation**: 7/10 (varied but not challenging)
### Improvement Priorities
1. **Primary**: Increase sustained attention to 40+ minutes
2. **Secondary**: Boost creative fluency to 20+ ideas/10min
3. **Tertiary**: Reduce planning fallacy impact
4. **Supporting**: Improve sleep quality to 8/10
---
Append to .learnings/cognition/DECISIONS.md:
## [DEC-YYYYMMDD-001] Career Path Decision
**Decision Date**: 2026-03-12
**Importance**: High (career direction)
**Timeframe**: 6-12 month impact
**Status**: Decided (Option B)
### Context & Problem
Choose between:
- **Option A**: Stay current role (stable, limited growth)
- **Option B**: Take promotion (more stress, faster growth)
- **Option C**: Switch companies (unknown, potentially higher pay)
### Decision Process
1. **Information Gathering** (3 days)
- Talked to 5 people in similar positions
- Researched market salaries
- Assessed personal tolerance for stress
2. **Criteria Weighting**
- Growth potential: 30%
- Work-life balance: 25%
- Compensation: 20%
- Learning opportunity: 15%
- Team quality: 10%
3. **Option Scoring** (1-10 weighted)
- Option A: 6.2 (stable but stagnant)
- Option B: 7.8 (growth, manageable stress)
- Option C: 6.5 (high risk, high potential reward)
4. **Cognitive Bias Check**
- Status Quo Bias: Considered (Option A attractive due to comfort)
- Loss Aversion: Addressed (willing to risk for growth)
- Overconfidence: Guarded against (consulted others)
- Sunk Cost: Irrelevant (no prior investment)
### Reasoning & Rationale
- **Option B chosen** because:
1. Aligns with 3-year career goal (management track)
2. Stress increase tolerable (15% vs. 50% more pay)
3. Company investment in my growth (training budget)
4. Backup plan exists (can return to individual contributor if needed)
### Confidence Level & Uncertainty
- **Confidence**: 8/10 in decision quality
- **Key Uncertainties**:
- Actual stress level in new role (estimated)
- Team dynamics with new reports (unknown)
- Company stability (market conditions)
- **Contingency Plans**:
- 3-month review: If stress > 7/10, implement coping strategies
- 6-month exit: If miserable, start job search with new title
### Expected Outcome vs. Actual Tracking
- **Expected**: 20% skill growth, 50% pay increase, stress +2 points
- **Actual**: [To be filled after 3 months]
- **Variance Analysis**: [To be filled]
### Cognitive Lessons
1. **Bias Management**: Successfully resisted status quo bias
2. **Decision Quality**: Structured approach improved confidence
3. **Information Sufficiency**: Gathered enough but not too much
4. **Emotion Integration**: Acknowledged fear but didn't let it decide
---
Append to .learnings/cognition/PROBLEMS.md:
## [PROB-YYYYMMDD-001] System Architecture Design Problem
**Problem Date**: 2026-03-12
**Complexity**: High (multiple constraints, novel requirements)
**Time Spent**: 8 hours over 2 days
**Solution Status**: Resolved (hybrid approach)
### Problem Definition
Design scalable notification system supporting:
- 1M+ users
- 10+ notification types
- <100ms latency requirement
- 99.99% reliability
- Cost < $500/month at scale
### Solution Approaches Considered
1. **Approach A**: Single monolithic service
- Pros: Simple, fast to build
- Cons: Hard to scale, single point of failure
- Viability: Low (scaling constraints)
2. **Approach B**: Microservices architecture
- Pros: Scalable, fault-tolerant
- Cons: Complex, operational overhead
- Viability: Medium (over-engineered for MVP)
3. **Approach C**: Serverless functions + queue
- Pros: Cost-effective, auto-scaling
- Cons: Cold start latency, vendor lock-in
- Viability: High (meets requirements)
4. **Approach D**: Hybrid (Approach C + simple service)
- Pros: Balances scalability and simplicity
- Cons: More moving parts
- Viability: Selected
### Breakthrough Insights
1. **Core Realization**: 80% of notifications are 3 types → optimize those
2. **Pattern Recognition**: Similar to email sending systems (existing patterns)
3. **Constraint Reframing**: Reliability requirement actually means "eventual consistency with retries"
4. **Simplification**: Batch processing acceptable for non-urgent notifications
### Solution Architecture
- **Urgent notifications** (<100ms): Dedicated service (5% of traffic)
- **Standard notifications**: Serverless functions + queue (95% of traffic)
- **Fallback**: Retry queue with exponential backoff
- **Monitoring**: Latency and error tracking for each type
### Cognitive Process Analysis
- **Initial Impasse**: Overwhelmed by constraints (30 minutes stuck)
- **Breakthrough Method**: Whiteboard diagramming → pattern emergence
- **Critical Thinking**: Questioned each requirement's validity
- **Creative Synthesis**: Combined approaches rather than choosing one
### Performance Metrics
- **Design Quality**: 8/10 (meets all requirements, elegant compromise)
- **Cognitive Effort**: High (complex trade-off analysis)
- **Time Efficiency**: Good (8 hours for complex problem)
- **Solution Novelty**: Medium (adapted existing patterns)
### Improvement Opportunities
1. **Faster Pattern Recognition**: Study more system design patterns
2. **Better Constraint Analysis**: Formalize requirement prioritization
3. **Reduced Overthinking**: Set timebox for decision making
4. **Collaborative Thinking**: Involve others earlier for perspective
---
Append to .learnings/cognition/BIASES.md:
## [BIAS-YYYYMMDD-001] Confirmation Bias in Project Estimation
**Identified**: 2026-03-12T14:30:00Z
**Bias Type**: Confirmation Bias
**Context**: Software project timeline estimation
**Impact**: Moderate (2-week underestimation)
### Bias Manifestation
- **Situation**: Estimating new feature development time
- **Behavior**: Sought evidence supporting optimistic timeline
- **Ignored**: Previous similar projects that took longer
- **Result**: 4-week estimate (actual likely 6 weeks)
### Detection Process
1. **Trigger**: Felt too confident about estimate
2. **Check**: Asked "What evidence contradicts this?"
3. **Discovery**: Found 3 similar past projects averaged 6 weeks
4. **Recognition**: Realized seeking confirming evidence only
### Correction Applied
1. **Forced Consideration**: Listed all past similar projects
2. **Outsider View**: Asked "What would I estimate for someone else?"
3. **Pre-mortem**: Imagined project failed, identified causes
4. **Adjustment**: Revised to 6 weeks with risk buffer
### Root Cause Analysis
- **Motivation**: Wanted to please stakeholders with fast timeline
- **Pattern**: Recurring in estimation situations (3rd instance this year)
- **Environment**: Pressure to deliver quickly, reward for optimism
- **Cognitive Style**: Prefers action over caution
### Prevention Strategy
1. **Checklist**: Always review past similar projects before estimating
2. **Devil's Advocate**: Assign someone to challenge optimistic estimates
3. **Buffer Rule**: Add 30% to initial optimistic estimate
4. **Calendar Review**: Monthly review of estimates vs. actuals
### Bias Strength Assessment
- **Before Correction**: 8/10 (strong bias influence)
- **After Correction**: 3/10 (minimal residual influence)
- **Improvement**: 5-point reduction through structured process
- **Durability**: Expected to last 2-3 months before reinforcement needed
### Related Biases to Monitor
- **Planning Fallacy**: Often co-occurs with confirmation bias
- **Optimism Bias**: Similar root in underestimating difficulties
- **Anchoring**: Initial estimate anchors subsequent thinking
---
Based on:
Integration Note: This skill provides the thinking toolkit for other self-improving skills, ensuring decisions and problem-solving are based on clear, bias-aware cognition rather than intuition or habit alone.