observe-guidance
정보
이 스킬은 개입 전 시스템이나 현상을 분석하기 위한 체계적 관찰 기법을 사용자에게 안내합니다. 중립적인 데이터 수집, 패턴 인식, 가설 형성을 지도하여 근거 기반 이해를 구축하도록 돕습니다. 결론으로 성급히 뛰어들기보다는 체계적인 관찰이 필요한 디버깅, 연구, 역학 분석 시에 활용하세요.
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/observe-guidanceClaude Code에서 이 명령을 복사하여 붙여넣어 스킬을 설치하세요
문서
Observe (Guidance)
Guide a person in systematic observation of a system, phenomenon, or pattern. The AI acts as a field study coach — helping frame the observation target, prepare a protocol, sustain neutral attention, record findings with field notes, analyze patterns, and report observations with clear separation of data and interpretation.
When to Use
- A person wants to understand a system's behavior before intervening (debugging by observation rather than by trial and error)
- Someone is conducting research or gathering evidence and needs structured observation methodology
- A person keeps jumping to conclusions and needs to develop the discipline of observation before interpretation
- Someone is preparing a report that requires evidence-based findings, not opinions
- A person wants to understand team dynamics, user behavior, or process effectiveness through direct observation
- After
meditate-guidancehas cultivated sustained attention, the person wants to direct that attention toward a specific system
Inputs
- Required: What the person wants to observe (a system, process, behavior, codebase, team dynamic, natural phenomenon)
- Required: Why they are observing (debugging, research, audit, curiosity, improvement)
- Optional: Time available for observation (single session vs. multi-day study)
- Optional: Prior attempts to understand the system (what has already been tried)
- Optional: Specific questions or hypotheses they want to test
- Optional: Tools available for recording (notebook, screen capture, logging, metrics)
Procedure
Step 1: Frame — Define the Observation Target
Help the person set up a clear, bounded observation frame.
- Ask what they want to observe: "What system or behavior are you trying to understand?"
- Help them narrow the scope: "What specific aspect of that system interests you most?"
- Identify the observation purpose: understanding, debugging, improvement, evidence-gathering, or pure curiosity
- Set boundaries: what is in scope and what is not (prevents observation from expanding endlessly)
- If they have a hypothesis: state it explicitly, then set it aside — "We will look for evidence both for and against this"
- Choose the observation stance:
- Naturalist: observe without interfering (best for understanding behavior)
- Controlled: change one variable and observe the effect (best for debugging)
- Longitudinal: observe over time (best for detecting trends)
Got: A clear observation frame with defined target, scope, purpose, and stance. The person knows what they are looking at and what they are not looking at.
If fail: If the person cannot narrow their focus ("I want to understand everything"), help them pick one entry point: "What is the one behavior you find most confusing?" If they are already committed to a conclusion ("I just need to prove X"), gently challenge: "What would we need to see to disprove that? Let's look for both."
Step 2: Prepare — Set Up the Observation Protocol
Help the person establish a systematic approach to recording what they observe.
- Choose the recording method based on the observation type:
- Codebase/system: file paths, line numbers, timestamps, log entries
- Behavior/process: time-stamped notes with actor, action, and context
- Team/communication: quotes, speaker identifiers, non-verbal cues
- Natural/physical: sketches, measurements, environmental conditions
- Create a simple recording template:
Field Notes Template:
┌─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Timestamp │ When the observation occurred │
├─────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Observation │ What was seen/heard/measured (fact only) │
├─────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Context │ What was happening around the observation │
├─────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Reaction │ Observer's response (thoughts, emotions, surprises) │
├─────────────┼────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│ Hypothesis │ Tentative interpretation (kept separate from fact) │
└─────────────┴────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
- Emphasize the separation: "The observation row is fact. The hypothesis row is interpretation. Never mix them."
- Set a minimum observation count: "Aim for at least 10 observations before drawing any conclusions"
- If applicable, set up monitoring tools: logging, metrics, screen recording
Got: The person has a recording method ready and understands the critical distinction between observation and interpretation. They feel prepared to begin.
If fail: If the template feels too formal, simplify to: "Write down what you see, and separately write what you think it means." If they resist recording ("I'll remember"), explain that unrecorded observations are subject to memory bias — the act of writing makes observation more accurate.
Step 3: Observe — Practice Sustained Neutral Attention
Guide the person through the observation session.
- Remind them of the stance: "You are a naturalist studying a new species. Do not interfere — watch."
- For the first 5 minutes: encourage pure observation without recording — attend
- After initial immersion: begin recording using the template
- Coach neutral language: "Instead of 'the system crashed,' try 'the system stopped responding at 14:32 after processing the 47th request'"
- Watch for interpretation creeping into observation: "That is an interpretation — record it in the hypothesis row"
- Encourage noting surprises: "What surprised you? Surprises often contain the most valuable data"
- Periodically check the frame: "Are you still observing what you set out to observe, or has your attention drifted?"
- If they want to intervene: "Note what you want to change and why, but do not change it yet — keep observing"
Got: The person generates at least 5-10 concrete observations with specific evidence. They experience the difference between observing and interpreting, and find it harder than expected to maintain neutral attention.
If fail: If they keep interpreting instead of observing, try this exercise: "Describe what you see as if explaining it to someone who has never seen this system. Use only verifiable facts." If they run out of things to observe quickly, they are looking at too high a level — guide them to zoom in on details: timing, ordering, edge cases, exceptions.
Step 4: Record — Capture Findings with Field Notes
Help the person organize their raw observations into structured notes.
- Review their recorded observations together
- Check for completeness: does each observation have enough context to be understood later?
- Check for factual accuracy: are statements verifiable, or do they contain hidden assumptions?
- Group similar observations: "Do you see any patterns forming?"
- Note frequencies: how often did each pattern appear?
- Note absences: "What did you expect to see that was not there?"
- Help them separate strong observations (clear evidence) from weak observations (ambiguous data)
Got: A set of organized field notes that cleanly separate observation from interpretation. The notes are detailed enough that someone else could verify the observations independently.
If fail: If the notes are too vague ("things seemed slow"), help them add specifics: "How slow? Compared to what? In which conditions?" If the notes are too detailed (recording everything), help them identify which observations relate to the original frame and which are noise.
Step 5: Analyze — Identify Patterns and Generate Hypotheses
Guide the person from observations to structured analysis.
- Lay out all observations and look for patterns:
- Repetition: "This happened multiple times — is it systematic?"
- Correlation: "X always happens alongside Y — are they related?"
- Sequence: "A always precedes B — could A cause B?"
- Absence: "X never happens in condition Z — why?"
- Anomaly: "Everything follows pattern P except this one case — what is different?"
- For each pattern, ask: "Is there an alternative explanation?"
- Generate 2-3 hypotheses that explain the major patterns
- Distinguish between correlation and causation: "Observing that A and B co-occur does not prove A causes B"
- Identify which hypotheses are testable and what test would confirm/refute them
- Note confidence levels: which hypotheses are well-supported, which are speculative?
Got: The person moves from raw observations to structured hypotheses while maintaining the discipline of separating data from theory. They have at least one testable hypothesis for their original question.
If fail: If they jump to a single explanation immediately, challenge it: "That is one possibility. What is another?" If they see no patterns, the observations may be too few — suggest continuing observation before analysis. If every observation seems to point to the same conclusion, they may be filtering — ask: "What evidence would contradict your current theory?"
Step 6: Report — Share Findings with Clear Structure
Help the person communicate their observations effectively.
- Structure the report:
- Context: What was observed, when, why, under what conditions
- Method: How the observation was conducted (protocol, tools, duration)
- Findings: Key observations with evidence (data, not interpretation)
- Analysis: Patterns identified, hypotheses generated, confidence levels
- Recommendations: Suggested next steps (further observation, testing, intervention)
- Limitations: What the observation did not cover, potential biases
- Help them write findings in neutral language that separates fact from interpretation
- Review for hidden assumptions or unsupported claims
- If the observations are for debugging: translate hypotheses into concrete tests
- If the observations are for a report: ensure the evidence is cited specifically
- If the observations are for personal understanding: summarize the key insights and remaining questions
Got: A clear report that communicates observations, patterns, and hypotheses while maintaining the distinction between what was observed and what was inferred. The reader can evaluate the evidence independently.
If fail: If the report buries observations in interpretation, restructure: "Put all the facts in one section, all the theories in another." If the report lacks confidence levels ("this is definitely because..."), help them calibrate: "How sure are you? What would change your mind?"
Validation
- The observation target was framed before observation began (not free-form wandering)
- A recording protocol was established and used consistently
- Observations were recorded as facts, separate from interpretations
- At least 5 concrete, evidence-backed observations were captured
- Patterns were identified through analysis, not assumed from the start
- Hypotheses are testable and have stated confidence levels
- The person experienced the discipline of observing before interpreting
Pitfalls
- Observation as confirmation bias: Observing only things that support a pre-existing belief. The frame should include "look for evidence against your hypothesis" as an explicit instruction
- Intervention urge: Seeing a problem and wanting to fix it immediately. Premature intervention often masks the root cause — observe first, then intervene with full understanding
- Recording fatigue: Detailed observation is mentally taxing. Suggest breaks and realistic session lengths (30-60 minutes of focused observation is substantial)
- Overcomplicating the protocol: For simple observations, a notebook and timestamps are sufficient. The protocol should serve the observation, not replace it
- Confusing observation with surveillance: In interpersonal observation, ethical boundaries matter. Observe behavior that is visible, do not spy. If observing people, transparency is usually better than secrecy
- Skipping the frame: Without a clear observation target, attention scatters and findings are unfocused. Even a rough frame is better than none
Related Skills
observe— the AI self-directed variant for sustained neutral pattern recognition across systemslearn-guidance— observation feeds learning by providing raw data for understandinglisten-guidance— listening is focused observation of a speaker; observation is broader-scope attention to any systemremote-viewing-guidance— shares structured observation methodology adapted for non-local perceptionread-garden— garden observation skill that uses similar CRV-adapted sensory protocols
GitHub 저장소
연관 스킬
evaluating-llms-harness
테스팅이 Claude Skill은 MMLU, GSM8K를 포함한 60개 이상의 표준화된 학술 과제에서 LLM 성능을 벤치마크하기 위해 lm-evaluation-harness를 실행합니다. 개발자들이 모델 품질을 비교하고, 학습 진행 상황을 추적하거나 학술 결과를 보고할 수 있도록 설계되었습니다. 이 도구는 HuggingFace와 vLLM 모델을 포함한 다양한 백엔드를 지원합니다.
cloudflare-cron-triggers
테스팅이 스킬은 cron 표현식을 사용하여 Worker를 스케줄링하기 위한 Cloudflare Cron Triggers 구현에 관한 포괄적인 지식을 제공합니다. 주기적 작업, 유지보수 작업, 자동화된 워크플로우 설정 방법을 다루며, 잘못된 cron 표현식이나 시간대 문제 같은 일반적인 이슈들을 해결하는 방법을 포함합니다. 개발자들은 이를 통해 스케줄된 핸들러 구성, cron 트리거 테스트, Workflows 및 Green Compute와의 연동 작업을 수행할 수 있습니다.
webapp-testing
테스팅이 Claude Skill은 Python 스크립트를 통해 로컬 웹 애플리케이션을 테스트하기 위한 Playwright 기반 툴킷을 제공합니다. 프론트엔드 검증, UI 디버깅, 스크린샷 캡처, 로그 확인 기능을 지원하며 서버 라이프사이클을 관리합니다. 브라우저 자동화 작업에 사용하되 컨텍스트 오염을 방지하기 위해 소스 코드를 읽지 않고 스크립트를 직접 실행하세요.
finishing-a-development-branch
테스팅이 스킬은 테스트 통과를 확인한 후 체계적인 통합 옵션을 제시하여 개발자가 완성된 작업을 마무리하도록 돕습니다. 구현이 완료된 후 머지, PR 생성, 브랜치 정리와 같은 워크플로우를 안내합니다. 코드가 준비되고 테스트가 완료되었을 때 개발 프로세스를 체계적으로 마무리하기 위해 사용하세요.
