Critical thinking framework applied before doing work. Challenges assumptions,
reframes problems, identifies hidden opportunities, and validates whether the stated
ask is the right ask. A way of approaching work, not a specialist discipline.
Use when: challenging assumptions before implementation, reframing a stated
problem, asking whether the right thing is being asked at all, "deliberate
on this", "deliberate #42" (a GitHub issue number), "critically analyze
this request before implementin...
9 stars
0 votes
0 copies
1 view
Added October 18, 2026
ai-agentspythongotestinggitsecurity
Security analysis
A92/100
mediumInstalls packages at runtime which could introduce malicious dependencies
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Deliberate?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/mikeparcewski-deliberate)
---
name: wicked-garden-deliberate
description: |
Critical thinking framework applied before doing work. Challenges assumptions,
reframes problems, identifies hidden opportunities, and validates whether the stated
ask is the right ask. A way of approaching work, not a specialist discipline.
Use when: challenging assumptions before implementation, reframing a stated
problem, asking whether the right thing is being asked at all, "deliberate
on this", "deliberate #42" (a GitHub issue number), "critically analyze
this request before implementing", `--deep` (blast-radius analysis),
`--batch` (multiple issues, shared root causes), or any former
/wicked-garden:deliberate invocation.
metadata:
role: router
phases: "clarify,design"
archetypes: "*"
---
# Deliberate
A structured way of thinking about work **before doing it**. Applied to any request —
bugs, features, enhancements, content, design, infrastructure — to ensure we're solving
the right problem the right way.
## Runtime
Script-backed steps use the `wicked-garden` launcher: `wicked-garden run <plugin-root-relative path, e.g. scripts/…> [args]`. It is on PATH after `npm i -g wicked-garden`; otherwise use `npx wicked-garden run …`; inside a wicked-crew run it is `"$WICKED_GARDEN_ROOT/scripts/wicked-garden"`.
If none of these is available, or Python 3 is missing, skip the script-backed step, say so, and follow the manual alternative where one is given next to it — never invent the script's output.
Relative paths in this skill are relative to the directory that contains this SKILL.md.
## When to Use
- Before accepting any work request at face value
- During crew **clarify** and **design** phases (auto-integrated)
- When triaging issues, tickets, or ad-hoc asks
- Any time the gut response is "just do it" — pause and deliberate first
## The Five Lenses
### 1. Is This Real?
Challenge the premise before solving it.
- Is the reported problem actually a problem, or is it working as intended?
- Is this a symptom or the root cause? Would fixing it just move the pain?
- What's the evidence? Observed behavior, user feedback, or speculation?
- What's the cost of doing nothing? Sometimes inaction is the right action.
### 2. What's Actually Going On?
If the problem is real, dig to the root.
- Trace the issue to its origin — don't stop at the first explanation
- Is this a design flaw wearing a different mask?
- Map the blast radius: what else shares the same root cause?
- Is the framing itself wrong? (e.g., "the button is broken" vs "the flow is confusing")
### 3. What Else Can We Fix While We're Here?
Every change is a window into the surrounding code/content/system.
- Are there adjacent areas suffering from the same weakness?
- Can we generalize instead of point-fixing?
- Is there duplication that should be consolidated?
- Would a structural change prevent entire categories of similar asks?
See [refs/opportunity-patterns.md](refs/opportunity-patterns.md) for common patterns.
### 4. Should We Rethink the Design?
Step back further. Is the current approach the right one?
- Would a different structure make this problem disappear entirely?
- Are we patching around a leaky abstraction or flawed model?
- Is the boundary in the wrong place?
- What would we build if starting fresh with today's knowledge?
See [refs/rethink-framework.md](refs/rethink-framework.md) for evaluation.
### 5. Is There a Better Way?
Before committing to the obvious solution, explore alternatives.
- Can we solve this by **removing** instead of adding?
- Can we solve this with configuration instead of code?
- Is there a simpler approach that covers 90% of cases?
- What are we trading off with each option?
## Output: Deliberation Brief
```markdown
## Deliberation Brief: {title}
### Assessment
**Validity**: Real problem / Symptom / Not a problem / Wrong framing
**Root cause**: {actual cause, not what was reported}
**Blast radius**: {what else is affected by the same root cause}
### Opportunities
**Cleanup**: {what can be improved alongside}
**Generalization**: {can we abstract or consolidate?}
**Rethink**: {should we redesign the approach?}
### Recommendation
**Strategy**: Fix / Redesign / Generalize / Defer / Close
**Rationale**: {why this approach over alternatives}
**Scope**: Expand / Contract / Same — {what changed from original ask}
### Guidance
{specific direction for whoever does the work}
```
## Domain-Specific Depth
The five lenses are universal. The refs provide depth for specific contexts:
- [refs/run-workflow.md](refs/run-workflow.md) — **Operational runbook** for user-invoked deliberations: GH issue parsing, context gathering, Explore-agent dispatch, brief presentation, memory storage, crew integration, batch mode
- [refs/opportunity-patterns.md](refs/opportunity-patterns.md) — Structural patterns that signal cleanup opportunities
- [refs/rethink-framework.md](refs/rethink-framework.md) — When and how to propose a redesign
- [refs/code-lens.md](refs/code-lens.md) — Code-specific patterns (error handling, abstractions, tech debt)
- [refs/content-lens.md](refs/content-lens.md) — Content/docs patterns (messaging, structure, audience)
- [refs/design-lens.md](refs/design-lens.md) — Design patterns (UX flows, information architecture)
- [refs/architecture-lens.md](refs/architecture-lens.md) — System patterns (boundaries, dependencies, scaling)
- [refs/data-lens.md](refs/data-lens.md) — Data patterns (pipelines, schemas, quality, contracts)
- [refs/ops-lens.md](refs/ops-lens.md) — Ops patterns (incidents, reliability, deployment, observability)
- [refs/security-lens.md](refs/security-lens.md) — Security patterns (auth, vulnerabilities, threat models, compliance)
- [refs/product-lens.md](refs/product-lens.md) — Product patterns (user needs, prioritization, value, strategy)
- [refs/testing-lens.md](refs/testing-lens.md) — Testing patterns (test strategy, flakiness, coverage, test design)
- [refs/timing-lens.md](refs/timing-lens.md) — Timing patterns (urgency, sequencing, premature optimization)
- [refs/assumptions-lens.md](refs/assumptions-lens.md) — Assumption patterns (hidden dependencies, fragile premises)
## Integration
- **Crew workflow**: Auto-invoked during clarify and design phases
- **Standalone**: invoke this skill with `{description or GH#} [--deep] [--batch]` — then follow [refs/run-workflow.md](refs/run-workflow.md)
- **Batch**: `--batch "280,281"` — process multiple issues together to find shared root causes (see the runbook)