Decision transparency, feedback collection, and debate invitations for AID methodology. Active in ALL phases for ALL roles.
Scanned 9/9/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add ilandahan/AID --skill learning-mode --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Learning Mode?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/ilandahan-learning-mode)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
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 |
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!