IterativeDepth
Customization
Before executing, check for user customizations at:
~/.claude/PAI/USER/SKILLCUSTOMIZATIONS/IterativeDepth/
If this directory exists, load and apply any PREFERENCES.md, configurations, or resources found there. These override default behavior. If the directory does not exist, proceed with skill defaults.
IterativeDepth
Structured multi-angle exploration of the same problem to extract deeper understanding and richer ISC criteria.
Grounded in 20 established scientific techniques across cognitive science (Hermeneutic Circle, Triangulation), AI/ML (Self-Consistency, Ensemble Methods), requirements engineering (Viewpoint-Oriented RE), and design thinking (Six Thinking Hats, Causal Layered Analysis).
Core Concept
Instead of analyzing a problem once, run 2-8 structured passes through the same problem, each from a systematically different lens. Each pass surfaces requirements, edge cases, and criteria invisible from other angles. The combination yields ISC criteria that no single-pass analysis could produce.
Use / Win
When to use: Any time you have time budget beyond Standard tier and the task is important enough that getting the ISC right matters more than speed. This is the single most valuable thinking capability for the OBSERVE phase. If you're at Extended effort or above, you should be asking "why NOT use IterativeDepth?" rather than "why use it?"
Concrete triggers:
- Extra time available — Extended+ effort means you have the budget. Spend it on understanding the problem deeply before writing ISC, not on writing more code faster.
- Deep analysis of what's actually being asked — The user said X. But what do they actually need? What are they trying to accomplish? What would make them rate this 9-10? Single-pass reverse engineering catches the obvious. IterativeDepth catches the rest.
- Different angles of approach — Before committing to an approach, explore the problem from stakeholder, failure, temporal, experiential, and constraint-inversion angles. The right approach often only becomes obvious after seeing the problem from 3-4 directions.
- Important or critical tasks — When the user says "this is critical" or the task has high blast radius, the cost of missing a dimension is much higher than the cost of 2-5 extra minutes of analysis.
- Tasks you've never done before — Novel work has the highest density of hidden requirements. IterativeDepth is insurance against the things you don't know you don't know.
What you win:
- ISC criteria that single-pass analysis cannot produce. Each lens surfaces requirements invisible from other angles. A 4-lens pass routinely discovers 30-50% more criteria than direct analysis.
- Blind spot elimination before they become mid-EXECUTE surprises. Rework from missed requirements is 5-10x more expensive than the upfront analysis. IterativeDepth pays for itself by preventing restarts.
- Approach clarity. Seeing the problem from failure, stakeholder, and constraint-inversion angles often reveals that the obvious approach is wrong and a better path exists.
- Confidence. When ISC criteria are built on multi-angle analysis, you can execute with conviction instead of discovering gaps halfway through.
The default mental model should be: At Extended+ effort, IterativeDepth is not optional enrichment — it's the standard way to understand what you're building before you build it.
Workflow Routing
| Trigger | Workflow |
|---|---|
| "iterative depth", "explore deeper", "multi-angle" | Workflows/Explore.md |
| "quick depth", "fast angles" | Workflows/Explore.md (Fast mode: 2 lenses) |
Quick Reference
- 8 Lenses available, scaled by SLA (2-8)
- Each lens is a structurally different exploration angle
- Output is new/refined ISC criteria per pass
- Integration point: Deeper understanding through structured multi-angle analysis
Full Documentation:
- Scientific grounding:
ScientificFoundation.md - Lens definitions:
TheLenses.md
Gotchas
- 2-8 lens passes, not infinite. Diminishing returns after ~5 passes for most topics.
- Each pass should surface genuinely NEW requirements, not restate previous findings. If passes start repeating, stop early.
- This is a BPE-fragile skill. Monitor whether smarter models make it unnecessary. Quarterly test recommended.
Examples
Example 1: Surface hidden requirements
User: "use iterative depth on this API redesign"
→ Pass 1: Functional requirements
→ Pass 2: Security implications
→ Pass 3: Performance constraints
→ Pass 4: Backward compatibility
→ Each pass surfaces new requirements missed by previous
Execution Log
After completing any workflow, append a single JSONL entry:
echo '{"ts":"'$(date -u +%Y-%m-%dT%H:%M:%SZ)'","skill":"IterativeDepth","workflow":"WORKFLOW_USED","input":"8_WORD_SUMMARY","status":"ok|error","duration_s":SECONDS}' >> ~/.claude/PAI/MEMORY/SKILLS/execution.jsonl
Replace WORKFLOW_USED with the workflow executed, 8_WORD_SUMMARY with a brief input description, and SECONDS with approximate wall-clock time. Log status: "error" if the workflow failed.
More from danielmiessler/personal_ai_infrastructure
osint
Structured OSINT investigations — people lookup, company intel, investment due diligence, entity/threat intel, domain recon, organization research using public sources with ethical authorization framework. USE WHEN OSINT, due diligence, background check, research person, company intel, investigate, company lookup, domain lookup, entity lookup, organization lookup, threat intel, discover OSINT sources.
259firstprinciples
Physics-based reasoning framework (Musk/Elon methodology) that deconstructs problems to irreducible fundamental truths rather than reasoning by analogy. Three-step structure: DECONSTRUCT (break to constituent parts and actual values), CHALLENGE (classify every element as hard constraint / soft constraint / unvalidated assumption — only physics is truly immutable), RECONSTRUCT (build optimal solution from fundamentals alone, ignoring inherited form). Outputs: constituent-parts breakdown, constraint classification table, and reconstructed solution with key insight. Three workflows: Deconstruct.md, Challenge.md, Reconstruct.md. Integrates with RedTeam (attack assumptions before deploying adversarial agents), Security (decompose threat model), Architecture (challenge design constraints), and Pentesters (decompose assumed security boundaries). Other skills invoke via: Challenge on all stated constraints → classify as hard/soft/assumption. Cross-domain synthesis: solutions from unrelated fields often apply once the fundamental truths are exposed. NOT FOR incident investigation and causal chains (use RootCauseAnalysis). NOT FOR structural feedback loops (use SystemsThinking). USE WHEN first principles, fundamental truths, challenge assumptions, is this a real constraint, rebuild from scratch, what are we actually paying for, what is this really made of, start over, physics first, question everything, reasoning by analogy, is this really necessary.
160documents
Read, write, convert, and analyze documents — routes to PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX sub-skills for creation, editing, extraction, and format conversion. USE WHEN document, process file, create document, convert format, extract text, PDF, DOCX, XLSX, PPTX, Word, Excel, spreadsheet, PowerPoint, presentation, slides, consulting report, large PDF, merge PDF, fill form, tracked changes, redlining.
114council
Multi-agent collaborative debate that produces visible round-by-round transcripts with genuine intellectual friction. All council members are custom-composed via ComposeAgent (Agents skill) with domain expertise, unique voice, and personality tailored to the specific topic — never built-in generic types. ComposeAgent invoked as: bun run ~/.claude/skills/Agents/Tools/ComposeAgent.ts. Two workflows: DEBATE (3 rounds, full transcript + synthesis, parallel execution within rounds, 40-90 seconds total) and QUICK (1 round, fast perspective check). Context files: CouncilMembers.md (agent composition instructions), RoundStructure.md (three-round structure and timing), OutputFormat.md (transcript format templates). Agents are designed per debate topic to create real disagreement; 4-6 well-composed agents outperform 12 generic ones. Council is collaborative-adversarial (debate to find best path); for pure adversarial attack on an idea, use RedTeam instead. NOT FOR parallel task execution across agents (use Delegation skill). USE WHEN council, debate, multiple perspectives, weigh options, deliberate, get different views, multi-agent discussion, what would experts say, is there consensus, pros and cons from multiple angles.
112privateinvestigator
Ethical people-finding using 15 parallel research agents (45 search threads) across public records, social media, reverse lookups. Public data only, no pretexting. USE WHEN find person, locate, reconnect, people search, skip trace, reverse lookup, social media search, public records search, verify identity.
112redteam
Military-grade adversarial analysis that deploys 32 parallel expert agents (engineers, architects, pentesters, interns) to stress-test ideas, strategies, and plans — not systems or infrastructure. Two workflows: ParallelAnalysis (5-phase: decompose into 24 atomic claims → 32-agent parallel attack → synthesis → steelman → counter-argument, each 8 points) and AdversarialValidation (competing proposals synthesized into best solution). Context files: Philosophy.md (core principles, success criteria, agent types), Integration.md (how to combine with FirstPrinciples, Council, and other skills; output format). Targets arguments, not network vulnerabilities. Findings ranked by severity; goal is to strengthen, not destroy — weaknesses delivered with remediation paths. Collaborates with FirstPrinciples (decompose assumptions before attacking) and Council (Council debates to find paths; RedTeam attacks whatever survives). Also invoked internally by Ideate (TEST phase) and WorldThreatModel (horizon stress-testing). NOT FOR AI instruction set auditing (use BitterPillEngineering). NOT FOR network/system vulnerability testing (use a security assessment skill). USE WHEN red team, attack idea, counterarguments, critique, stress test, devil's advocate, find weaknesses, break this, poke holes, what could go wrong, strongest objection, adversarial validation, battle of bots.
112