Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality. More: deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop
Scanned 9/3/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add deciqAI/knowledge-skills --skill ooda-loop --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Ooda Loop?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/deciqai-ooda-loop)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: ooda-loop
description: "Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality. More: deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop"
---
# OODA Loop
## Overview
Colonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.
The strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.
Composes with [`metacognition`](../metacognition/SKILL.md) (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), [`feedback-loops`](../feedback-loops/SKILL.md) (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), [`first-principles`](../first-principles/SKILL.md) (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and [`momentum-and-form`](../momentum-and-form/SKILL.md) (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).
## When to Use
- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product
- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win
- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable
- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame
- AI-native startup out-shipping a slower incumbent as model capabilities shift monthly (AI adoption, AI capex, ship-on-release-day tempo)
**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.
## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)
- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.
- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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.
1. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.
2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.
3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.
> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**
## The Process
**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.
**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.
**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.
**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.
**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.
**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.
## Output Template
```markdown
# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>
- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>
- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>
- Bottleneck: <stage + why>
- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?
- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>
- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>
```
*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) · [Gulf War "Left Hook" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)*
*→ 2026 lens: [AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)](examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md)*
## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business
| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |
|---|---|---|
| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |
| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |
| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |
| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |
## Applying It Well
- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.
- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish "fast + good" from "fast + wrong."
- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.
*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*
## Common Rationalizations
**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**
| Fake move | Reality |
|---|---|
| [D] "Speed is everything" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |
| [D] "We're deliberating, that's good" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |
| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |
| [D] "We're agile, we cycle fast" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. "Agile" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |
| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |
| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |
| [D] "Boyd" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |
| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |
## Red Flags
- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality
- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step
- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources
- "Move fast and break things" applied to irreversible domains
- "We're agile" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated
## Verification
- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates
- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed
- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified
- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed
- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck
- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered
---
*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 237 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/ooda-loop** · Built by deciqAI · github.com/deciqAI · Contributions welcome.*
*Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json*
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!