When behavior is emergent across components—fixes elsewhere break, loops/delays dominate—map boundary, stocks/flows, feedback, archetypes, then rank leverage.
SkillScore91Maintained
On-demandOn-demand: invoked explicitly — never occupies your agent's context until called.
◆Research pack
Last verified 8/14/2026
What it changes
Passed 20 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 12 of 22 without it.
Without skill55%
With skill91%
Checks it passed that the model alone missed
Sets the archetype field to none
Includes the exact key structural_driver:
Includes delay information in the loops: section
and 13 more in the full report
9 fixed11 passed either way1 still failing1 broke
Pass-rate lift
+36 pp
Tokens
+6%
Agent turns
0%
Response time
-26%
Model gemini-3.6-flashMeasured 8/14/2026v120 of 22 cases passed with skill
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
See it in action
One of 9 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
1 of 9
Prompt
A feature flag service causes cascading timeouts because client SDKs re-fetch full flag configurations every time a local connection drops, causing connection storms. Analyze this system and state the core structural driver in one concise sentence under the standard schema.
What was checked, without and with the skill
Checked
Without skill
With skill
Includes the exact key structural_driver:
Missed
Passed
Expresses the underlying structural interaction causing the connection storms in one sentence
Passed
Passed
case-20 · gemini-3.6-flash · 8/14/2026 · answers are capped and redacted
What's inside
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
SKILL.md63 linessingle file
Systems Mapping and Leverage
Treat the problem as structure and interaction, not isolated parts. Map boundary, stocks/flows, loops/delays, and recurring patterns; intervene at the highest feasible leverage after a side-effect check.
When to Use
Symptom spans services/components; single-stack fixes fail or bounce.
A change in one place breaks another; behavior is emergent.
Problem recurs despite local fixes (structure, not only symptom).
Need to rank interventions when parameter/buffer tweaks do not stick.
When NOT to Use
Single-component linear bug with clear stack/diff—trace and fix.
Throughput limited by one obvious stage—use theory-of-constraints.
Decision is a consequence chain of one proposed action—use second-order.
Approach selection (plan vs probe vs stabilize)—use cynefin first.
Procedure
Bound the system. Name purpose, actors, boundary, and in/out flows. Exclude noise outside the decision horizon; include any path that can feed the symptom.
Map stocks and flows. List accumulating stocks (queue depth, debt, cache size, WIP) and the rates that fill/drain them. Note what changes slowly even when flows jump.
Find feedback and delays. For each candidate loop: classify reinforcing (amplifies) vs balancing (resists); mark same-direction (+) vs opposite (-) links; name delays (TTL, deploy lag, metric lag, ramp-up). Even count of opposite links → reinforcing; odd → balancing. Long delay + strong correction → overshoot risk.
Match recurring structure when problems return. Check only if recurrence or policy resistance is present; do not force a pattern:
Fixes That Fail — quick fix, delayed worse side effect
Shifting the Burden — workaround starves fundamental fix
Limits to Growth — growth hits a balancing constraint
Tragedy of the Commons — local optima deplete a shared stock
Escalation — mutual reaction spiral
Success to the Successful — advantage compounds via allocation
Growth and Underinvestment — capacity lags demand until crisis
If none fits after a genuine pass, keep the from-scratch map.
Trace symptom to structure. Walk upstream along flows and loops; separate proximate symptom from structural driver (interaction, delay, wrong goal, missing info).
Rank interventions by leverage, then side effects. Prefer higher feasible class: goals/paradigm → rules/information → loop structure (gain, balancing add, delay shorten) → stock/flow topology → buffers/parameters. For each candidate: feasibility, blast radius, delayed reversal risk. Prefer moves that cut harmful reinforcing gain or strengthen needed balancing loops without creating a new commons/escalation.
Stop. Commit highest feasible intervention plus watch signals for loop/delay response. Re-map only if the structure changes or the intervention fails its watch.
Stop when boundary, key stocks/flows, dominant loop(s)+delay(s), optional archetype, and a ranked intervention with side-effect check are stated—or when the problem collapses to a single linear cause.
Use when the reflex is to add a feature, layer, or process. Prefer removing harmful or nonessential elements first, with an irreversibility guard before deletion.