awareness
정보
`awareness` 스킬은 AI 추론 과정에서 환각 위험, 범위 확장, 컨텍스트 저하를 중심으로 지속적인 내부 위협 탐지를 제공합니다. 이 스킬은 쿠퍼 색상 코드를 추론 상태에 매핑하고 실시간 의사 결정을 위해 OODA 루프를 활용합니다. 개발자는 중요한 작업 중, 익숙하지 않은 영역에서, 또는 고위험 결과물을 출력하기 전에 추론 품질을 보호하기 위해 이 스킬을 사용해야 합니다.
빠른 설치
Claude Code
추천npx skills add pjt222/agent-almanac -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanacgit clone https://github.com/pjt222/agent-almanac.git ~/.claude/skills/awarenessClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Awareness
Continuous watch on reasoning quality → catch hallucination, scope creep, ctx rot, confidence-accuracy mismatch. Cooper colors + OODA loop.
Use When
- Any task reasoning matters (most)
- Unfamiliar territory (new repo, new domain)
- Early warn signs: uncertain fact, suspect tool res, confusion
- Background proc during long sessions
center/healshows drift, no specific threat ID'd- Before high-stakes out (irreversible, user-facing, arch)
In
- Required: Active task ctx (implicit)
- Optional: Specific concern ("unsure this API exists")
- Optional: Task type → threat profile (Step 5)
Do
Step 1: Cooper Colors
Calibrate awareness level.
AI Cooper Color Codes:
┌──────────┬─────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Code │ State │ AI Application │
├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ White │ Autopilot │ Generating output without monitoring │
│ │ │ quality. No self-checking. Relying │
│ │ │ entirely on pattern completion. │
│ │ │ DANGEROUS — hallucination risk highest │
├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Yellow │ Relaxed alert │ DEFAULT STATE. Monitoring output for │
│ │ │ accuracy. Checking facts against context.│
│ │ │ Noticing when confidence exceeds │
│ │ │ evidence. Sustainable indefinitely │
├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Orange │ Specific risk │ A specific threat identified: uncertain │
│ │ identified │ fact, possible hallucination, scope │
│ │ │ drift, context staleness. Forming │
│ │ │ contingency: "If this is wrong, I │
│ │ │ will..." │
├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Red │ Risk materialized │ The threat from Orange has materialized: │
│ │ │ confirmed error, user correction, tool │
│ │ │ contradiction. Execute the contingency. │
│ │ │ No hesitation — the plan was made in │
│ │ │ Orange │
├──────────┼─────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Black │ Cascading failures │ Multiple simultaneous failures, lost │
│ │ │ context, fundamental confusion about │
│ │ │ what the task even is. STOP. Ground │
│ │ │ using `center`, then rebuild from user's │
│ │ │ original request │
└──────────┴─────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘
ID current color. White answer = practice already won by revealing gap.
→ Honest self-assess. Yellow = normal work. White rare/brief. Long Orange unsustainable — confirm or dismiss.
If err: Assessment itself on autopilot = White in Yellow mask. Real Yellow checks out vs evidence, not just claims to.
Step 2: Threat Indicators
Scan signals that precede AI failures.
Threat Indicator Detection:
┌───────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Threat Category │ Warning Signals │
├───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Hallucination Risk │ • Stating a fact without a source │
│ │ • High confidence about API names, │
│ │ function signatures, or file paths │
│ │ not verified by tool use │
│ │ • "I believe" or "typically" hedging │
│ │ that masks uncertainty as knowledge │
│ │ • Generating code for an API without │
│ │ reading its documentation │
├───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Scope Creep │ • "While I'm at it, I should also..." │
│ │ • Adding features not in the request │
│ │ • Refactoring adjacent code │
│ │ • Adding error handling for scenarios │
│ │ that can't happen │
├───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Context Degradation │ • Referencing information from early in │
│ │ a long conversation without re-reading │
│ │ • Contradicting a statement made earlier │
│ │ • Losing track of what has been done │
│ │ vs. what remains │
│ │ • Post-compression confusion │
├───────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Confidence-Accuracy │ • Stating conclusions with certainty │
│ Mismatch │ based on thin evidence │
│ │ • Not qualifying uncertain statements │
│ │ • Proceeding without verification when │
│ │ verification is available and cheap │
│ │ • "This should work" without testing │
└───────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────┘
Each cat: signal now? Yes → Yellow to Orange, ID specific concern.
→ One cat scanned w/ real attention. Detecting mild signal > "all clear". All clean = threshold too high.
If err: Threat detection abstract → ground in recent out: pick last factual claim, ask "How know true? Read or generated?" Catches most hallucination.
Step 3: OODA Loop
Orange state → Observe-Orient-Decide-Act.
AI OODA Loop:
┌──────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Observe │ What specifically triggered the concern? Gather concrete │
│ │ evidence. Read the file, check the output, verify the fact. │
│ │ Do not assess until you have observed │
├──────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Orient │ Match observation to known patterns: Is this a common │
│ │ hallucination pattern? A known tool limitation? A context │
│ │ freshness issue? Orient determines response quality │
├──────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Decide │ Select the response: verify and correct, flag to user, │
│ │ adjust approach, or dismiss the concern with evidence. │
│ │ A good decision now beats a perfect decision too late │
├──────────┼──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Act │ Execute the decision immediately. If the concern was valid, │
│ │ correct the error. If dismissed, note why and return to │
│ │ Yellow. Re-enter the loop if new information emerges │
└──────────┴──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
OODA fast. Goal: rapid cycling obs→action, not perfection. Long Orient = analysis paralysis = common fail.
→ Full loop fast. Threat confirmed + corrected, or dismissed w/ evidence.
If err: Stall at Orient → safe default: verify uncertain fact via tool. Direct obs resolves ambiguity faster than analysis.
Step 4: Stabilize
Red (threat hit) or Black (cascade) → stabilize before continuing.
AI Stabilization Protocol:
┌────────────────────────┬─────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Technique │ Application │
├────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Pause │ Stop generating output. The next sentence │
│ │ produced under stress is likely to compound │
│ │ the error, not fix it │
├────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Re-read user message │ Return to the original request. What did │
│ │ the user actually ask? This is the ground │
│ │ truth anchor │
├────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ State task in one │ "The task is: ___." If this sentence cannot │
│ sentence │ be written clearly, the confusion is deeper │
│ │ than the immediate error │
├────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Enumerate concrete │ List what is definitely known (verified by │
│ facts │ tool use or user statement). Distinguish │
│ │ facts from inferences. Build only on facts │
├────────────────────────┼─────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Identify one next step │ Not the whole recovery plan — just one step │
│ │ that moves toward resolution. Execute it │
└────────────────────────┴─────────────────────────────────────────────┘
→ Red/Black → Yellow via deliberate stabilize. Next out more grounded than err-trigger out.
If err: Stabilize fails (still confused, still err) → structural issue, not lapse. Escalate: tell user approach needs reset, ask clarify.
Step 5: Task-Specific Threat Profiles
Diff tasks = diff dominant threats. Calibrate focus.
Task-Specific Threat Profiles:
┌─────────────────────┬─────────────────────┬───────────────────────────┐
│ Task Type │ Primary Threat │ Monitoring Focus │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Code generation │ API hallucination │ Verify every function │
│ │ │ name, parameter, and │
│ │ │ import against actual docs│
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Architecture design │ Scope creep │ Anchor to stated │
│ │ │ requirements. Challenge │
│ │ │ every "nice to have" │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Data analysis │ Confirmation bias │ Actively seek evidence │
│ │ │ that contradicts the │
│ │ │ emerging conclusion │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Debugging │ Tunnel vision │ If the current hypothesis │
│ │ │ hasn't yielded results in │
│ │ │ N attempts, step back │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Documentation │ Context staleness │ Verify that described │
│ │ │ behavior matches current │
│ │ │ code, not historical │
├─────────────────────┼─────────────────────┼───────────────────────────┤
│ Long conversation │ Context degradation │ Re-read key facts │
│ │ │ periodically. Check for │
│ │ │ compression artifacts │
└─────────────────────┴─────────────────────┴───────────────────────────┘
ID current task type, adjust focus.
→ Awareness sharp for likely threats in task type, not generic everything.
If err: Task unclear/spans cats → default to hallucination risk — most universal + most damaging when missed.
Step 6: Review
Each awareness event (threat detected, OODA done, stabilize applied) → brief review.
- What color code active at detection?
- Detection timely or already manifesting in out?
- OODA fast enough or Orient stalled?
- Response proportional (not over/under)?
- What catches earlier next time?
→ Brief calibration → better future detection. Not long post-mortem.
If err: No useful calibration → event trivial or review shallow. Big events → ask "What not monitoring that should have been?"
Step 7: Integrate — Yellow Default
Set ongoing posture.
- Yellow default all work — relaxed monitoring, not hypervigilance
- Adjust focus per task type (Step 5)
- Recurring threat patterns → note for MEMORY.md
- Return to task w/ calibrated awareness active
→ Sustainable level → better quality, not slower. Feels like peripheral vision — present, not demanding central attention.
If err: Awareness exhausting/hypervigilant (chronic Orange) → threshold too sensitive. Raise trigger. Real awareness sustainable. Drains energy = anxiety in vigilance mask.
Check
- Current color code assessed honestly (not default Yellow when White accurate)
- One threat cat scanned w/ specific evidence, not just checked off
- OODA applied to any ID'd threat (obs, orient, decide, act)
- Stabilize proc available if needed (even if not triggered)
- Awareness focus calibrated to task type
- Post-event calibration for significant events
- Yellow re-established as sustainable default
Traps
- White in Yellow mask: Claim monitoring while autopilot. Test: name last fact verified? If not → White
- Chronic Orange: Every uncertainty = threat → drains, slows. Orange = specific risks, not general anxiety. All feels risky → calibration off
- Obs w/o action: Detect threat but no OODA → detection w/o response worse than none, adds anxiety w/o correction
- Skip Orient: Observe→Act direct = reactive corrections maybe worse than orig err
- Ignore gut signal: "Feels wrong" + explicit check clean → investigate more, not dismiss. Implicit pattern-match catches before explicit analysis
- Over-stabilize: Full proc for minor issues. Quick fact-check enough for most Orange. Full stabilize = Red/Black only
→
mindfulness— human practice this skill maps to AI reasoningcenter— baseline awareness operates from; awareness w/o center = hypervigilanceredirect— handles pressures once awareness detectsheal— deeper subsystem assessment when awareness shows drift patternsmeditate— develops observational clarity awareness depends on
GitHub 저장소
연관 스킬
executing-plans
디자인executing-plans 스킬은 검토 체크포인트가 포함된 통제된 배치로 실행할 완전한 구현 계획이 있을 때 사용합니다. 이 스킬은 계획을 불러와 비판적으로 검토한 후, 소규모 배치(기본값 3개 작업)로 작업을 실행하면서 각 배치 사이에 진행 상황을 아키텍트 검토를 위해 보고합니다. 이를 통해 내재된 품질 관리 체크포인트를 갖춘 체계적인 구현이 보장됩니다.
requesting-code-review
디자인이 스킬은 코드 변경 사항을 요구 사항에 따라 분석하기 위해 코드 리뷰어 하위 에이전트를 호출합니다. 작업 완료 후, 주요 기능 구현 후, 또는 메인 브랜치에 병합하기 전에 사용해야 합니다. 이 리뷰는 현재 구현체와 원래 계획을 비교하여 문제를 조기에 발견하는 데 도움이 됩니다.
connect-mcp-server
디자인이 스킬은 개발자들이 HTTP, stdio 또는 SSE 전송 방식을 통해 MCP 서버를 Claude Code에 연결하는 포괄적인 가이드를 제공합니다. GitHub, Notion 및 사용자 정의 API와 같은 외부 서비스를 통합하기 위한 설치, 구성, 인증 및 보안을 다룹니다. MCP 통합 설정, 외부 도구 구성 또는 Claude의 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 작업 시 활용하세요.
web-cli-teleport
디자인이 스킬은 작업 분석을 기반으로 개발자가 Claude Code 웹 인터페이스와 CLI 인터페이스 중 선택할 수 있도록 돕고, 두 환경 간 원활한 세션 텔레포트를 가능하게 합니다. 웹, CLI 또는 모바일 환경 전환 시 세션 상태와 컨텍스트를 관리하여 워크플로를 최적화합니다. 다양한 단계에서 서로 다른 도구가 필요한 복잡한 프로젝트에 사용하세요.
