Skip to content
Agentmart
Submit a tool

thinking-systems

When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.

Skill by tjboudreaux

IndexedMIT★ 1,668
Write a review

Chalk Labs

Need help deploying thinking-systems?

Chalk Labs sets up agents like this inside real teams: connected to your tools, tested on your data, with a human in the loop where it matters.

Book a call

Install

Works with Claude Code, Claude apps, Codex, Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot, VS Code, OpenCode, Goose, Windsurf. Read the repository before you give any tool access to your data.

npx agentmarket install skill/tjboudreaux-thinking-systems

Asks which of your tools to add it to (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, VS Code, Windsurf, Gemini CLI, Claude Desktop) and shows the change first. See https://agentmart.dev/cli.

Get the weekly diff

The weekly diff: one email a week with new agent tools, notable updates and grade changes, plus security alerts for tools you follow. Double opt-in, one-click unsubscribe.

We use your email only for this newsletter. Privacy

About

When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.

No reviews yet. Installed it? Reviews come from verified installers only. How reviews work

Permissions

What this skill can do and what it asks for, from its SKILL.md. Checked Oct 25, 2026.

Tools
No tools found
Secrets
None asked for
Install scripts
None found

Network hosts it talks to 1

  • codeload.github.com · found in install command

Files it touches

  • ~/.claude/skills/thinking-systems

What's inside

Skill name
thinking-systems
Description
When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.
License
MIT
Instructions
65 lines in SKILL.md · view on GitHub

Files (1)

  • SKILL.md

SKILL.md (first lines)

# Systems Mapping and Leverage

Treat the problem as structure and interaction, not isolated parts. Map boundary, stocks/flows, loops/delays, and recurring patterns; intervene at the highest feasible leverage after a side-effect check.

## When to Use

- Symptom spans services/components; single-stack fixes fail or bounce.
- A change in one place breaks another; behavior is emergent.
- Problem recurs despite local fixes (structure, not only symptom).
- Need to rank interventions when parameter/buffer tweaks do not stick.

## When NOT to Use

- Single-component linear bug with clear stack/diff—trace and fix.
- Throughput limited by one obvious stage—use theory-of-constraints.
- Decision is a consequence chain of one proposed action—use second-order.
- Approach selection (plan vs probe vs stabilize)—use cynefin first.

## Procedure

1. **Bound the system.** Name purpose, actors, boundary, and in/out flows. Exclude noise outside the decision horizon; include any path that can feed the symptom.
2. **Map stocks and flows.** List accumulating stocks (queue depth, debt, cache size, WIP) and the rates that fill/drain them. Note what changes slowly even when flows jump.
3. **Find feedback and delays.** For each candidate loop: classify reinforcing (amplifies) vs balancing (resists); mark same-direction (+) vs opposite (-) links; name delays (TTL, deploy lag, metric lag, ramp-up). Even count of opposite links → reinforcing; odd → balancing. Long delay + strong correction → overshoot risk.
4. **Match recurring structure when problems return.** Check only if recurrence or policy resistance is present; do not force a pattern:
   - Fixes That Fail — quick fix, delayed worse side effect
   - Shifting the Burden — workaround starves fundamental fix
   - Limits to Growth — growth hits a balancing constraint
   - Tragedy of the Commons — local optima deplete a shared stock
   - Escalation — mutual reaction spiral
   - Success to the Successful — advantage compounds via allocation
   - Growth and Underinvestment — capacity lags demand until crisis
   If none fits after a genuine pass, keep the from-scratch map.
5. **Trace symptom to structure.** Walk upstream along flows and loops; separate proximate symptom from structural driver (interaction, delay, wrong goal, missing info).
6. **Rank interventions by leverage, then side effects.** Prefer higher feasible class: goals/paradigm → rules/information → loop structure (gain, balancing add, delay shorten) → stock/flow topology → buffers/parameters. For each candidate: feasibility, blast radius, delayed reversal risk. Prefer moves that cut harmful reinforcing gain or strengthen needed balancing loops without creating a new commons/escalation.
7. **Stop.** Commit highest feasible intervention plus watch signals for loop/delay response. Re-map only if the structure changes or the intervention fails its watch.

**Stop when** boundary, key stocks/flows, dominant loop(s)+delay(s), optional archetype, and a ranked intervention with side-effect check are stated—or when the problem collapses to a single linear cause.

## Output

```text
boundary: <system purpose and edges>
stocks_flows: <stock → inflow/outflow list>
loops:
  - name: <loop>
    type: reinforcing | balancing
    delay: <where cause lags effect>
    links: <brief +/->
archetype: <name or none>
structural_driver: <one sentence>
interventions_ranked:
  - level: <goals|rules|loops|structure|params>
    action: <what>
    side_effects: <feedback/elsewhere/delay risk>
chosen: <highest feasible>
watch: <signals that confirm or falsify>
```

## Verification

- **Falsify:** If removing one component fully explains and fixes the issue with no cross-effects, systems mapping is wrong—drop to local debug. If utilization shows one fixed stage as the sole cap, switch to theory-of-constraints.
- **Stop:** Do not keep adding loops after the chosen intervention and watch are set.
- **Over-application guard:** No archetype without recurrence evidence. No low-leverage param tweak listed as primary when a feasible higher class exists. Do not recreate standalone archetype/feedback/leverage procedures—those checks live only inside this map.

From tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills, MIT.

More from tjboudreaux/cc-thinking-skills

Signals

Stars
1,668
Forks
185
Open issues
2
Last commit (this folder)
Jul 17, 2026 (3 months ago)
Last release
Aug 4, 2026 (2 months ago)

From GitHub (fetched Oct 24, 2026).

Details

License
MIT
First seen
Oct 24, 2026
Last checked
Oct 24, 2026

More from tjboudreaux

Done for you

Rather not set it up yourself?

Chalk Labs scopes, builds and runs agents for your team: the task audit, the eval harness, the integrations and the weekly ops report. Fixed scope, priced before we start.

See how we build AI agents →Read the case studies

Chalk Labs is a two-founder AI and growth studio. We build AI agents, CRMs and MVPs for Web3 and AI companies, and have shipped 50+ product and token launches.

launches shipped
50+
launches shipped
media placements
500+
media placements
founders on every account
2
founders on every account

Press we've placed: Forbes · CoinDesk · Decrypt · Cointelegraph · The Block

Rahil Jain, Co-founder, Chalk Labs. Ex-Goldman Sachs engineer. You talk to the person who builds it.

Get thinking-systems running in your business

Tell us what you want to automate. A founder replies within one working day with a plan, not a pitch deck.

Goes to the Chalk Labs founders, not the newsletter. Privacy

Need help deploying thinking-systems?

CallGet help
Cite this page

thinking-systems skill. Agent Mart. https://agentmart.dev/skills/tjboudreaux-thinking-systems (last updated 2026-10-24)