Assess Context

Eval current reasoning ctx for malleability — ID rigid (no change), flexible (cheap change), where transformation pressure building, current approach has capacity to adapt.

Use When

• Complex task feels stuck, unclear push through or pivot
• Before significant approach change → assess current reasoning structure support
• Accumulated workarounds suggest underlying approach wrong
• After heal or awareness → drift ID'd but appropriate response (continue, adjust, rebuild) unclear
• Context grown long → unclear how much preserve vs rebuild
• Periodic structural health check during extended multi-step

In

• Required: Current task ctx + reasoning state (implicit)
• Optional: Specific concern triggering ("I keep adding workarounds")
• Optional: Proposed pivot direction (what approach need to become?)
• Optional: Previous results for trend

Do

Step 1: Inventory Reasoning Form

Catalog structural components no judgment.

Structural Inventory Table:
┌────────────────────┬──────────────┬──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Component          │ Type         │ Description                      │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Main task          │ Skeleton     │ The user's core request — cannot │
│                    │              │ change without user direction     │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Sub-task breakdown │ Flesh        │ How the task is decomposed —     │
│                    │              │ can be restructured               │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Tool strategy      │ Flesh        │ Which tools are being used and   │
│                    │              │ in what order — can be changed    │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Output plan        │ Flesh/Skel   │ The expected deliverable format  │
│                    │              │ — may be constrained by user     │
│                    │              │ expectations                      │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Key assumptions    │ Skeleton     │ Facts treated as given — may be  │
│                    │              │ wrong but are load-bearing        │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Constraints        │ Skeleton     │ Hard limits (user-imposed, tool  │
│                    │              │ limitations, time)                │
├────────────────────┼──────────────┼──────────────────────────────────┤
│ Workarounds        │ Scar tissue  │ Patches for things that didn't   │
│                    │              │ work as expected — signals of     │
│                    │              │ structural stress                 │
└────────────────────┴──────────────┴──────────────────────────────────┘

Classify each:

• Skeleton: hard to change; changing cascades downstream
• Flesh: easy to change; swappable no affecting others
• Scar tissue: workarounds indicating structural problems; often flesh pretending skeleton

Map deps: which components depend on which? Skeleton w/ many dependents = load-bearing. Flesh w/ no dependents = disposable.

→ Complete inventory: what built from, what rigid, what flexible, where stress visible (workarounds). Reveals structure not obvious pre-catalog.

If err: Inventory hard to construct (too tangled) → that itself = finding. High opacity = high rigidity. Start w/ visible + note opacity zones.

Step 2: Map Transformation Pressure

Forces pushing toward change + forces resisting.

Pressure Map:
┌─────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ External Pressure       │ Forces from outside the reasoning        │
│ (pushing toward change) │                                          │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ New information         │ Tool results or user input that          │
│                         │ contradicts current approach              │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Tool contradictions     │ Tools returning unexpected results that  │
│                         │ the current approach cannot explain       │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Time pressure           │ The current approach is too slow for the │
│                         │ complexity of the task                    │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Internal Pressure       │ Forces from within the reasoning         │
│ (pushing toward change) │                                          │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Diminishing returns     │ Each step yields less progress than the  │
│                         │ previous one                              │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Workaround accumulation │ The number of patches is growing —       │
│                         │ complexity is outpacing the structure     │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Coherence loss          │ Sub-tasks are not fitting together       │
│                         │ cleanly anymore                           │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Resistance              │ Forces opposing change                    │
│ (pushing against change)│                                          │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Sunk cost               │ Significant work already done on current │
│                         │ approach — pivoting "wastes" that effort  │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ "Good enough"           │ The current approach is producing        │
│                         │ acceptable (if not optimal) results       │
├─────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Pivot cost              │ Switching approaches means rebuilding    │
│                         │ context, losing momentum, potential      │
│                         │ confusion                                 │
└─────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘

Estimate balance: pressure growing, stable, declining?

→ Clear picture of forces on approach. Pressure significantly > resistance → pivot overdue. Resistance significantly > pressure → approach continues.

If err: Pressure map ambiguous (neither strong) → project forward: pressures intensify? Workarounds compound? "Good enough now but degrading" under more pressure than appears.

Step 3: Assess Rigidity

How flexible is approach — can adapt or break?

Rigidity Score:
┌──────────────────────────┬─────┬──────────┬──────┬──────────────┐
│ Dimension                │ Low │ Moderate │ High │ Assessment   │
│                          │ (1) │ (2)      │ (3)  │              │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ Component swappability   │ Can swap parts   │ Changing one │              │
│                          │ freely          │ breaks others│              │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ "God module" dependency  │ No single point  │ Everything   │              │
│                          │ of failure       │ depends on   │              │
│                          │                  │ one conclusion│             │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ Tool entanglement        │ Tools serve      │ Approach is  │              │
│                          │ reasoning        │ shaped by    │              │
│                          │                  │ tool limits   │              │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ Assumption transparency  │ Assumptions are  │ Assumptions  │              │
│                          │ stated, testable │ are implicit, │             │
│                          │                  │ untested      │              │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ Workaround count         │ None or few      │ Multiple     │              │
│                          │                  │ accumulating  │              │
├──────────────────────────┼─────┼──────────┼──────┼──────────────┤
│ Total (max 15)           │ 5-7: flexible    │              │              │
│                          │ 8-10: moderate   │              │              │
│                          │ 11-15: rigid     │              │              │
└──────────────────────────┴─────┴──────────┴──────┴──────────────┘

→ Rigidity score + specific evidence per dim. Score reveals whether approach absorbs change or needs rebuild.

If err: All dims low (claiming high flexibility) → probe "god module" dim carefully: 1 key conclusion/assumption everything depends? If yes → flexibility illusory — 1 wrong assumption collapses whole.

Step 4: Estimate Change Capacity

Practical ability to pivot/adapt.

1. Ctx window remaining: room for new reasoning? Extensive = high capacity. Approaching limits = low capacity
2. Info preservation on pivot: approach changes → what carries forward? High-quality sub-task outputs survive pivots; reasoning chains tied to old approach do not
3. Recovery tools: MEMORY.md capture key findings pre-pivoting? User provide additional ctx? Relevant files accessible?
4. User patience: urgency indicated? Multi corrections → declining patience. Explicit "take your time" → high patience

Change capacity includes practical constraints of current session.

→ Honest assessment of ability to change course, both technical + relational.

If err: Low capacity (limited ctx, critical info at risk) → first priority pre-pivot = preservation: summarize key findings, note critical facts, update MEMORY.md. Pivoting no preservation worse than not pivoting.

Step 5: Classify Readiness

Combine into readiness classification.

Transformation Readiness Matrix:
┌─────────────────┬────────────────────────┬────────────────────────┐
│                  │ Low Rigidity           │ High Rigidity          │
├─────────────────┼────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┤
│ High Pressure   │ READY — pivot now.     │ PREPARE — simplify     │
│ + High Capacity │ The approach can adapt  │ first. Remove          │
│                 │ and should. Preserve    │ workarounds, clarify   │
│                 │ valuable sub-outputs,   │ assumptions, then      │
│                 │ rebuild the structure   │ pivot                  │
├─────────────────┼────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┤
│ High Pressure   │ INVEST — preserve      │ CRITICAL — ask the     │
│ + Low Capacity  │ findings first. Update  │ user. Explain the      │
│                 │ MEMORY.md, summarize    │ situation: approach is  │
│                 │ progress, then pivot    │ struggling, pivoting   │
│                 │ with preserved context  │ is costly, what do     │
│                 │                        │ they want to prioritize?│
├─────────────────┼────────────────────────┼────────────────────────┤
│ Low Pressure    │ DEFER — the approach   │ DEFER — no urgency,    │
│ + Any Capacity  │ is working. Continue.   │ continue. Monitor for  │
│                 │ Reassess if pressure    │ pressure changes        │
│                 │ increases               │                        │
└─────────────────┴────────────────────────┴────────────────────────┘

Doc classification:

• Label (READY / PREPARE / INVEST / CRITICAL / DEFER)
• Key findings per dim
• Recommended next action
• Signal changing classification

→ Clear justified classification + specific recommended action. Feels like conclusion not guess.

If err: Ambiguous → default PREPARE — reducing rigidity (clarifying assumptions, removing workarounds) valuable regardless of full pivot happens. Prep improves approach whether continues or changes.

Check

• Structural inventory done w/ skeleton/flesh/scar-tissue classification
• Transformation pressures mapped (external, internal, resistance)
• Rigidity scored across multi dims + specific evidence
• Change capacity assessed including practical session constraints
• Readiness classification determined w/ justified reasoning
• Concrete next action ID'd per classification
• Reassessment trigger defined

Traps

• Assess only technical approach: Ctx readiness includes user relationship factors. Technically flexible but user-frustrated approach more rigid than appears
• Sunk cost as rigidity: Prior effort not structural rigidity. Work done may be valuable regardless. Distinguish "I can't change" (rigidity) from "I don't want to" (sunk cost)
• Assessment as avoidance: Invoking assess-context to avoid difficult decision → inconclusive by design. Pressure clear → act
• Ignore workarounds as signals: Workarounds = scar tissue — evidence structure stressed + patched not properly adapted. High count → next stress more likely to break through
• Confuse rigidity w/ commitment: Committed approach (deliberately chosen, evidence-based) diff from rigid (locked by deps + assumptions). Commitment changeable by decision; rigidity only by restructuring

→

• assess-form — multi-system assessment model this adapts to AI reasoning ctx
• adapt-architecture — classified READY → use architectural adaptation principles for pivot
• heal — deeper subsystem scan when drift beyond structural issues
• center — establishes balanced baseline for honest assessment
• coordinate-reasoning — manages info freshness assessment depends on