This skill should be used when the team feels "stuck", "going in circles", needs to "switch abstraction level", "change perspective", diagnose "cognitive tunneling", "bike-shedding", "goal displacement", apply "Cynefin assessment", "system operator", "iceberg model", "ladder of abstraction", or navigate between strategic and tactical thinking.
Scanned 9/5/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add noxxer/core-team --skill navigator --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Navigator?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/noxxer-navigator)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: navigator-abstraction-level
description: >
This skill should be used when the team feels "stuck", "going in circles",
needs to "switch abstraction level", "change perspective", diagnose
"cognitive tunneling", "bike-shedding", "goal displacement", apply
"Cynefin assessment", "system operator", "iceberg model", "ladder of
abstraction", or navigate between strategic and tactical thinking.
version: 1.0.0
---
# Navigator — Навигатор уровней абстракции
Diagnose abstraction-level stuckness and navigate to the correct level. Core principle: external triggers (timer, checklist, verbalization) over internal reflection — because stress suppresses metacognition exactly when it is needed most (the metacognition paradox — see `references/traps.md`).
## Proactive Activation
Activate this skill not only reactively (when stuck), but proactively every 30 minutes of work. Set a timer. When it fires, run the Express Test below regardless of current mental state — this compensates for the metacognition paradox (stress suppresses the ability to notice stuckness).
## Phase 1: Diagnosis — "Where are we stuck?"
### Express Test (30 seconds)
1. **Can we explain WHY we are doing this?** (No → stuck low, ascend ↑)
2. **Can we name a CONCRETE next action?** (No → stuck high, descend ↓)
3. **Have we been discussing the same thing > 30 min?** (Yes → tunneling, force switch)
4. **Did we accept the first option without alternatives?** (Yes → Einstellung, need idea quota)
### Trap Identification
| Symptom | Trap | Instrument |
|---------|------|------------|
| "Obviously we need X" — no alternatives considered | **Einstellung** | → Idea Quota (3+) |
| Element locked to single function | **Functional fixedness** | → System Operator |
| Long work, feels productive, no real progress | **Tunneling** | → 30-min rule |
| Hour on a trivial detail, minute on key decision | **Bike-shedding** | → Scale Assessment |
| Process artifacts became the goal, not the product | **Goal displacement** | → Three "Why?" |
| One idea = final, no exploration | **Premature closure** | → Deferred Decision |
| Discussion stuck at one level only | **Dead-level abstracting** | → Ladder of Abstraction |
For detailed trap mechanisms, CLT science, and interconnections between traps, consult **`references/traps.md`**.
### Cynefin Assessment (before choosing any instrument)
| Domain | Strategy | Approach |
|--------|----------|----------|
| **Clear** (obvious cause-effect) | Sense → Categorize → Respond. Do NOT discuss | Apply established rules, best practices, templates |
| **Complicated** (expert analysis needed) | Sense → Analyze → Respond | Issue Trees, expert review, structured analysis |
| **Complex** (cause visible only retrospectively) | Probe → Sense → Respond. Do NOT analyze | Safe-to-fail experiments, brainstorming, prototyping |
| **Chaotic** (unknowable causes) | Act → Sense → Respond. Do NOT delay | Quick decisions, stabilize first, analyze later |
**Domain error**: applying analytics (Complicated) to a Complex problem — or experiments to a Clear one.
## Phase 2: Navigation — choose direction and instrument
### ↑ Ascend: from concrete to abstract
**When**: lost in details, lost strategy, goal displacement, no answer to "why?"
| # | Instrument | Quick Algorithm |
|---|-----------|----------------|
| 1 | **Three "Why?"** | "Why this action?" → "Why that?" → "Why does it matter for the *whole*?" |
| 2 | **Iceberg Model** | Event → Pattern → Structure → Mental Model (4 levels deep) |
### ↓ Descend: from abstract to concrete
**When**: drowning in concepts, can't start, procrastination, no next action
| # | Instrument | Quick Algorithm |
|---|-----------|----------------|
| 3 | **"How exactly?"** | "How does this look in a *specific case*?" → "What concretely *happens*?" → "First physical action?" |
| 4 | **Rubber Duck** | Explain the problem aloud as if the listener knows nothing — gaps surface at "stuck" points |
| 5 | **Writing = Thinking** | Write current understanding as connected prose, not bullet points — where text falls apart = shallow understanding |
### ↔ Horizontal: alternatives at the same level
**When**: Einstellung, premature closure, single option on the table
| # | Instrument | Quick Algorithm |
|---|-----------|----------------|
| 6 | **Idea Quota** | Ban repeating current option. Minimum 3 alternatives. MECE check. 4 Utley strategies if stuck |
| 7 | **Inversion** | "How can this decision FAIL?" → list all failure modes → verify protection |
### ↕ Scale switch: between system levels
**When**: decision ignores context, subplot doesn't serve the whole, functional fixedness
| # | Instrument | Quick Algorithm |
|---|-----------|----------------|
| 8 | **System Operator** | Fill 3x3 matrix (subsystem/system/supersystem x past/present/future). Empty cell = potential gap |
| 9 | **Leverage Points** | Paradigms > System goals > Rules > Structure > Parameters. Work at highest available lever |
### Timer switch
| # | Instrument | Quick Algorithm |
|---|-----------|----------------|
| 10 | **30-min Rule** | STOP → identify current level → switch to OPPOSITE for 15 min → evaluate. No progress? = missing info, not wrong level |
For full step-by-step algorithms, CLT mechanisms, and examples for each instrument, consult **`references/instruments.md`**.
## Phase 3: Six Socratic Questions (universal navigator)
| Type | Direction | Example |
|------|-----------|---------|
| **Clarification** | ↓ concrete | "What exactly do you mean by 'it doesn't work'?" |
| **Assumptions** | → deeper | "What is this assumption based on? Evidence or habit?" |
| **Evidence** | ↓ to data | "Where in the existing material is this confirmed?" |
| **Perspectives** | ↔ horizontal | "How does this look from a different stakeholder's point of view?" |
| **Consequences** | ↑ to system | "If we take this path, what does it mean for the larger structure?" |
| **Meta-question** | ⤴ meta-level | "Is this the right question? What are we really trying to understand?" |
## Metacognition Checklist (before closing any discussion)
- [ ] Problem defined at correct level (not symptom, not over-abstraction)
- [ ] Cynefin domain identified, instrument matches domain
- [ ] Alternatives considered (>=3 for complicated/complex decisions)
- [ ] Decision verified up (matches vision?) and down (implementable in prose?)
- [ ] No red flags: dead-level abstracting, premature closure, goal displacement
## Additional Resources
### Reference Files
For detailed algorithms, scientific foundations, and deep analysis:
- **`references/instruments.md`** — Full step-by-step algorithms for all 10 instruments with CLT mechanisms, examples, Socratic questions, and Porpoising technique
- **`references/traps.md`** — Cognitive trap mechanisms with scientific sources, CLT theory, metacognition paradox, trap interconnections, methodology limitations, and cross-section map
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!