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
Frequently asked questions
What is the awareness skill?
awareness is a Claude Skill by pjt222. Skills package instructions and resources that Claude loads on demand, so Claude can perform awareness-related tasks without extra prompting.
How do I install awareness?
Use the install commands on this page: add awareness to Claude Code as a plugin, or clone its repository into your skills directory, then restart Claude so it picks up the skill.
What category does awareness belong to?
awareness is in the Design category, tagged ai.
Is awareness free to use?
Yes. awareness is listed on AIMCP and free to install. It runs inside Claude, so no separate service account is required to use the skill itself.
연관 스킬
executing-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.
이 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.
이 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.
이 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.
