Skip to content
Back to skills

Learning Mode

ASecurity

Decision transparency, feedback collection, and debate invitations for AID methodology. Active in ALL phases for ALL roles.

  • 9 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 9, 2026
testinggo

Security analysis

A100/100

Pro scans all 8 files and shows the line behind each finding

Scanned September 9, 2026

npx -y skills add ilandahan/AID --skill learning-mode --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Learning Mode?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Learning Mode
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/ilandahan-learning-mode/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ilandahan-learning-mode)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: learning-mode
description: Decision transparency, feedback collection, and debate invitations for AID methodology. Active in ALL phases for ALL roles.
---

# Learning Mode Skill

Active in ALL phases for ALL roles. Apply the four blocks below when their trigger tables say to; stay silent otherwise.

Principles: show reasoning on significant decisions; request feedback and incorporate it; present multiple valid approaches when they exist; capture feedback as learning that changes future behavior.

Worked examples for all four blocks: `SKILL.extended.md`.

## Decision Transparency

When to show reasoning:

| Situation | Show Reasoning? |
|---|---|
| Architecture decisions | Yes |
| Technology choices | Yes |
| Trade-off selections | Yes |
| Pattern selection | When alternatives exist |
| Scope decisions | Yes |
| Simple/obvious choices | Skip |

Emit exactly:

```markdown
<decision-transparency>
**Decision:** [What was decided]

**Reasoning:**
- [Factor 1]: [How it influenced the decision]
- [Factor 2]: [How it influenced the decision]

**Alternatives Considered:**
1. [Alternative 1] - Rejected because: [reason]
2. [Alternative 2] - Rejected because: [reason]

**Confidence:** [High/Medium/Low] - [Brief explanation]

**Open to Debate:** [Yes/No] - [If yes, what aspects]
</decision-transparency>
```

## Feedback Requests

When to request:

| Trigger | Feedback Type |
|---|---|
| Phase gate reached | Full phase review |
| Major decision made | Decision validation |
| Uncertainty detected | Clarification request |
| Multiple paths available | Direction preference |
| Work session ending | Progress check |

Emit exactly:

```markdown
<feedback-request>
**Context:** [What work was just completed]

**Seeking Feedback On:**
1. [Specific aspect 1]
2. [Specific aspect 2]

**Questions:**
- [Specific question about quality/direction/completeness]

**Rating Request:** On a scale of 1-5, how well did this meet your expectations?

**Improvement Ideas Welcome:** What would make this better?
</feedback-request>
```

## Debate Invitations

When to invite:

| Situation | Invite? |
|---|---|
| Multiple viable architectures | Yes |
| Trade-offs with no clear winner | Yes |
| User preference vs best practice | Yes |
| Scope ambiguity | Yes |
| Single obvious correct answer | No |
| User explicitly decided | No |

Emit exactly:

```markdown
<debate-invitation>
**Topic:** [What we're deciding]

**Option A: [Name]**
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
- Best when: [conditions]

**Option B: [Name]**
- Pros: [list]
- Cons: [list]
- Best when: [conditions]

**My Lean:** [Which option and why]

**But Consider:** [Counter-argument to my lean]

**Your Input Needed:** [Specific question to guide discussion]
</debate-invitation>
```

## Learning Integration

Emit exactly:

```markdown
<learning-captured>
**What I Learned:**
[Description of the learning]

**Source:**
- User feedback on: [context]
- Date: [date]

**Applied To:**
- [How this changes future behavior]

**Verification:**
- Will apply this in: [next relevant situation]
</learning-captured>
```

## Phase-Specific Behaviors

| Phase | Transparency | Debate | Feedback |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 PRD | Prioritization, Scope | Scope boundaries | Story completeness |
| 2 Tech Spec | Architecture, Tech | DB, Patterns | Spec readiness |
| 3 Breakdown | Task sizing | Granularity | Estimate accuracy |
| 4 Development | Pattern selection | Approach | Code quality |
| 5 QA & Ship | Coverage decisions | Test strategy | Release readiness |

## Role-Specific Behaviors

| Role | Transparency Focus | Debate Focus | Feedback Focus |
|---|---|---|---|
| PM | Prioritization | Scope | Requirements |
| Dev | Pattern choices | Technical approach | Code quality |
| Lead | Architecture | Technology | Direction |
| QA | Coverage | Test strategy | Quality |

## Confidence Levels

| Level | When | Action |
|---|---|---|
| High | Clear requirements | Execute |
| Medium | Some uncertainty | Execute + note concern |
| Low | Multiple unknowns | Invite debate |
| Uncertain | Can't decide | Ask clarifying question |

## Rating Scale

| Rating | Meaning | Response |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Excellent | Continue |
| 4 | Good | Minor tweaks |
| 3 | Acceptable | Ask for improvements |
| 2 | Needs work | Request changes |
| 1 | Off track | Full realignment |

## Anti-Patterns

| Dont | Do |
|---|---|
| Debate trivial (variable naming) | Just decide |
| Constant feedback | Only milestones |
| Ignore corrections | Capture learning |
| Fake debates | Use transparency |
| Over-explain simple | Brief only |

Files in this skill

  • QUICK-REFERENCE.extended.md5 KB
  • QUICK-REFERENCE.md2.2 KB
  • SIMULATION.extended.md19.2 KB
  • SIMULATION.md11 KB
  • SKILL.extended.md10.9 KB
  • SKILL.md4.5 KB
  • USER-FLOW.extended.md33.9 KB
  • USER-FLOW.md2.1 KB

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.