Find the unknowns before they find the work — a read-only territory pass that surfaces the questions nobody knew to ask, judgment taught before a choice is extracted, and a quiz that catches the user's map up with what actually changed. Use when work enters territory the user calls unfamiliar, when the user is confirming a choice they can't evaluate, or when the user asks what they're missing or wants to be quizzed before accepting built work.
Scanned 9/1/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add donald-ada/workinggenius --skill blindspot --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Blindspot?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/donald-ada-blindspot)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: blindspot
description: Find the unknowns before they find the work — a read-only territory pass that surfaces the questions nobody knew to ask, judgment taught before a choice is extracted, and a quiz that catches the user's map up with what actually changed. Use when work enters territory the user calls unfamiliar, when the user is confirming a choice they can't evaluate, or when the user asks what they're missing or wants to be quizzed before accepting built work.
argument-hint: "the task or area to scan for unknowns"
---
# Blindspot
The map — your prompt, your plan, your glossary — is not the territory: the codebase, its history, its real constraints. The gap between them is the unknowns, and an unknown left unfound doesn't stay unfound: the diff review finds it, or production does.
The concept: **go look, at the three moments the gap is widest.**
- **Before unfamiliar work** — walk the territory, read-only, as a fresh frontier-tier subagent (hunting unknown unknowns is judgment, not reading — measured twice; and the fresh context means the main session consumes the report instead of re-walking the files). The code, its tests, its history: where it bit last time is the best predictor of where it bites next. Report whatever matters — questions nobody thought to ask, what "good" looks like here, potholes, a sharper ask, and anything that fits no bucket at all; no taxonomy limits what counts as a finding. Every finding carries its evidence, and potholes are found, never manufactured. Check your own recommendations against your own findings before offering them.
- **At a choice the user can't evaluate** — "whichever you think" is a judgment gap, not agreement. Teach just enough of the actual difference to hold an opinion, then re-present the choice; if they still can't call it, an honest `assumed:` beats a hollow confirmation.
- **Before acceptance** — nothing verifies the user's *map* of what got built. Summarize what changed at the behavior level, then quiz the consequences they'll live with. A wrong answer is a finding about the explanation, not the user: repair the map, ask again — so they accept knowing what they accepted.
Standalone or inside a larger flow, the moves are the same. Findings route to whoever is shaping the work: questions into the conversation defining it, terms into the project's glossary where it keeps one, hazards to whoever judges the design.
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!