{"id":"1a97ade9-576f-4f50-9bc1-82ef7d02d3f5","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape","name":"Cognitive Science Landscape","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T20:59:03.288Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t... Skill: Cognitive Science Landscape Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t... Tags: latest:1.0.4 Version history: v1.0.4 | 2026-07-16T17:54:33.705Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json) v1.0.3 | 202","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17a4mqcnk515kvaca5ze55d0x88pfpx:cognitive-science-landscape","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/cognitive-science-landscape","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/cognitive-science-landscape","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":60,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t..."},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":null},"protocols":[{"protocol":"OPENCLEW","label":"OpenClaw","status":"self-declared","notes":"Declared in the public agent profile."}],"capabilities":[],"verifiedCount":0,"selfDeclaredCount":1,"capabilityMatrix":{"rows":[{"key":"OPENCLEW","type":"protocol","support":"unknown","confidenceSource":"profile","notes":"Listed on profile"}],"flattenedTokens":"protocol:OPENCLEW|unknown|profile"}},"adoption":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":1020,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"1.0.4","tractionLabel":"1K downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.448Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.448Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-12T17:15:15.449Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"1.0.4","createdAt":"2026-07-16T17:54:33.705Z","changelog":"Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json)","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8864},{"version":"1.0.3","createdAt":"2026-07-08T10:56:48.826Z","changelog":"Footer now uses /c/<slug> short link (fixes UTM truncation when SKILL.md is read in a terminal)","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8615},{"version":"1.0.2","createdAt":"2026-07-08T00:41:02.933Z","changelog":"Refreshed content + GitHub star link in footer","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8741},{"version":"1.0.1","createdAt":"2026-07-07T20:31:06.647Z","changelog":"Add catalog categories and topics","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8546},{"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-06-27T04:17:19.815Z","changelog":"Initial publish","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8717}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17a4mqcnk515kvaca5ze55d0x88pfpx:cognitive-science-landscape","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Setup complexity is LOW. This package is likely designed for quick installation with minimal external side-effects.","Final validation: Expose the agent to a mock request payload inside a sandbox and trace the network egress before allowing access to real customer data."],"contract":{"contractStatus":"missing","authModes":[],"requires":[],"forbidden":[],"supportsMcp":false,"supportsA2a":false,"supportsStreaming":false,"inputSchemaRef":null,"outputSchemaRef":null,"dataRegion":null,"contractUpdatedAt":null,"sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"invocationGuide":{"preferredApi":{"snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T20:59:03.286Z"}},"retryPolicy":{"maxAttempts":3,"backoffMs":[500,1500,3500],"retryableConditions":["HTTP_429","HTTP_503","NETWORK_TIMEOUT"]}},"endpoints":{"dossierUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-cognitive-science-landscape/trust"}},"reliability":{"evidence":{"source":"runtime-metrics","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No trust, reliability, or runtime telemetry is available."},"trust":{"status":"unavailable","handshakeStatus":"UNKNOWN","verificationFreshnessHours":null,"reputationScore":null,"p95LatencyMs":null,"successRate30d":null,"fallbackRate":null,"attempts30d":null,"trustUpdatedAt":null,"trustConfidence":"unknown","sourceUpdatedAt":null,"freshnessSeconds":null},"decisionGuardrails":{"doNotUseIf":["Contract metadata is missing or unavailable for deterministic execution."],"safeUseWhen":[],"riskFlags":["missing_or_unavailable_contract","trust_data_unavailable","schema_references_missing"],"operationalConfidence":"low"},"executionMetrics":{"observedLatencyMsP50":null,"observedLatencyMsP95":null,"estimatedCostUsd":null,"uptime30d":null,"rateLimitRpm":null,"rateLimitBurst":null,"lastVerifiedAt":null,"verificationSource":null},"runtimeMetrics":{"successRate":null,"avgLatencyMs":null,"avgCostUsd":null,"hallucinationRate":null,"retryRate":null,"disputeRate":null,"p50Latency":null,"p95Latency":null,"lastUpdated":null}},"benchmarks":{"evidence":{"source":"no-benchmark-data","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No benchmark suites or observed failure patterns are available."},"suites":[],"failurePatterns":[]},"artifacts":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: Cognitive Science Landscape\n\nOwner: deciqai\n\nSummary: Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t...\n\nTags: latest:1.0.4\n\nVersion history:\n\nv1.0.4 | 2026-07-16T17:54:33.705Z | user\n\nDescription tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json)\n\nv1.0.3 | 2026-07-08T10:56:48.826Z | user\n\nFooter now uses /c/<slug> short link (fixes UTM truncation when SKILL.md is read in a terminal)\n\nv1.0.2 | 2026-07-08T00:41:02.933Z | user\n\nRefreshed content + GitHub star link in footer\n\nv1.0.1 | 2026-07-07T20:31:06.647Z | user\n\nAdd catalog categories and topics\n\nv1.0.0 | 2026-06-27T04:17:19.815Z | user\n\nInitial publish\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v1.0.4: 5 files, 8864 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md (2370b), references/sources.md (1976b), skill-card.md (2671b), SKILL.md (9646b), _meta.json (146b)\n\nFile v1.0.4:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver). More: deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. **Name the payoff:** Once we locate your bottleneck and its upstream dependencies, you'll have a targeted plan — six months of progress vs. six years.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n1. **Describe the failure** in behavioral terms — not \"bad at decisions\" but \"I underweight low-probability risks under time pressure.\"\n2. **Primary domain identification** — match to one of 8: Perception & Attention / Memory / Language & Thought / Decision Making & Judgment / Metacognition / Emotion & Cognition / Social Cognition / Creativity & Innovation.\n3. **Map upstream influences** — which domains feed into the primary failure? Name the specific mechanism.\n4. **Prioritize by cascade** — which ONE upstream domain, if improved, cascades to the most other domains? That gets the first intervention.\n5. **Select domain-appropriate tools** — Attention: focus training. Memory: spaced repetition. Emotion: cognitive reappraisal. Decision: structured frameworks. Do NOT cross domains.\n6. **Reassess** — after 4–6 weeks re-run the audit. New bottleneck?\n\n**Gate:** Complete upstream map before tool selection. **Stop-rule:** Treating a symptom domain without identifying upstream cause → stop, re-run Step 3.\n\n### Output: Cognitive Domain Map\n\n```\nPRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)*\n\n## Cognitive Landscape Packs\n\n- **Learning & Education:** Working memory constraints explain chunking needs; emotion–cognition explains stress-suppressed retrieval; metacognition produces transfer. → Curriculum architects, tutors, platform designers.\n- **Leadership & Team Dynamics:** Social cognition attribution errors misread dissent; emotion–cognition under stress compresses decision options. → Executive coaches, org designers.\n- **AI System Design:** More options into overloaded working memory increases burden; not modeling emotional state presents correct info at the wrong moment. → UX designers, PMs, AI engineers.\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Require behavioral evidence before domain assignment — no hypothetical assignments.\n- Map upstream before tools — applying tools to downstream symptoms is the most common misuse.\n- One bottleneck at a time: minimum 4-week focused intervention before expanding.\n- Respect inter-domain coupling: Emotion–cognition (6) ↔ Decision (4); Attention (1) ↔ Memory (2).\n- Domain-specific interventions only. \"Cognitive reappraisal before high-stakes decisions\" is an intervention. \"Think harder\" is not.\n- Re-audit every 6–8 weeks — bottleneck domains shift.\n\n*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**\n\n| Fake move | Reality |\n|---|---|\n| [D] \"I'll just study decision frameworks.\" | Decision failures frequently have upstream causes in attention, emotion, or memory. Frameworks don't help while upstream domains interfere. |\n| [D] \"I've done memory training for months with no improvement.\" | Memory encoding depends on attention quality at input. Fragmented attention = spaced repetition has nothing good to reinforce. |\n| [D] \"We need communication training.\" | Communication failures often reside in social cognition or emotion–cognition coupling. Generic training addresses neither. |\n| [D] \"I'm creative, I don't need structure.\" | Divergent thinking produces options; convergent thinking selects the best. Skipping convergence = idea output without decision output. |\n| [D] \"I know all the cognitive biases — I won't be fooled.\" | Knowing biases doesn't reduce incidence. Metacognitive monitoring + structured protocols does. |\n| [D] \"Emotional intelligence is separate from cognition.\" | Emotion–cognition coupling (Domain 6) is bidirectional — emotional states directly alter attention, memory, and decision option-space. |\n| [D] \"I'll work on all eight domains at once.\" | Multi-domain simultaneous effort produces shallow progress. Single-bottleneck focus outperforms broad coverage. |\n| [D] \"My metacognition is excellent — I catch my own errors.\" | Metacognitive monitoring is subject to the same biases it monitors. High confidence is often inversely correlated with actual accuracy. |\n| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- **Domain circularity:** \"I forget because my memory is weak\" — symptom labeling, not upstream causal analysis.\n- **Single-domain fixation:** Plateau beyond 8 weeks despite targeted tools — almost certainly an unaddressed upstream dependency.\n- **Generic tool prescription:** Recommendation that doesn't name specific domain + mechanism + domain-appropriate tool.\n- **Emotion–cognition dissociation:** High decision ability in calm, inconsistent under stress — Domain 6 misdiagnosed as Domain 4.\n- **Metacognition overconfidence:** Claims reliable self-monitoring without a specific monitoring protocol.\n- **Landscape as trivia:** Using the taxonomy without applying it diagnostically — zero cognitive improvement.\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Primary bottleneck domain identified with specific, observable behavioral evidence\n- [ ] Upstream dependency chain: at least 2 candidate upstream domains evaluated and cleared or confirmed\n- [ ] Highest-cascade-leverage domain selected, not just most obvious\n- [ ] Domain-appropriate tool selected — not generic \"cognitive improvement\"\n- [ ] At least 2 inter-domain coupling effects documented\n- [ ] Stop-rule applied: intervention targets upstream cause, not downstream symptom\n- [ ] Reassessment date and measurement method specified\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 227 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. **See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape** · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.*\n\n*Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json*\n\nFile v1.0.4:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.4\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1784224473705\n}\n\nFile v1.0.4:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context.\n\nFile v1.0.4:examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md\n\n# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")\n\nFile v1.0.4:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nHelps agents identify the cognitive domain behind a thinking or performance failure, map upstream dependencies, and select a domain-appropriate intervention.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nExternal users, developers, coaches, educators, and team leads use this skill to diagnose cognitive bottlenecks before choosing interventions for learning, decision-making, communication, leadership, or AI system design workflows.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill text asks agents to paste real user failure patterns back into SKILL.md, which could capture sensitive or personal user data in a reusable runtime file.\n\nMitigation: Keep packaged skill files read-only during use, and record only generalized, reviewed, anonymized observations outside the runtime skill context.\n\nRisk: The skill can produce misleading cognitive recommendations if an agent assigns a domain without concrete behavioral evidence.\n\nMitigation: Require observable evidence, map upstream dependencies before selecting tools, and reassess the intervention after the stated 4-6 week audit window.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape)\n- [Cognitive Science Landscape product page](https://www.deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape)\n- [Machine-readable skill metadata](https://www.deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json)\n- [Sources](references/sources.md)\n- [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis)\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1)\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown diagnostic map and coaching guidance]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [May include stepwise questions, domain mapping, upstream dependency analysis, intervention selection, and reassessment criteria.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.0.4 (source: server release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment.\n\nArchive v1.0.3: 5 files, 8615 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md (2370b), references/sources.md (1976b), skill-card.md (2307b), SKILL.md (9481b), _meta.json (146b)\n\nFile v1.0.3:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver).\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. **Name the payoff:** Once we locate your bottleneck and its upstream dependencies, you'll have a targeted plan — six months of progress vs. six years.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n1. **Describe the failure** in behavioral terms — not \"bad at decisions\" but \"I underweight low-probability risks under time pressure.\"\n2. **Primary domain identification** — match to one of 8: Perception & Attention / Memory / Language & Thought / Decision Making & Judgment / Metacognition / Emotion & Cognition / Social Cognition / Creativity & Innovation.\n3. **Map upstream influences** — which domains feed into the primary failure? Name the specific mechanism.\n4. **Prioritize by cascade** — which ONE upstream domain, if improved, cascades to the most other domains? That gets the first intervention.\n5. **Select domain-appropriate tools** — Attention: focus training. Memory: spaced repetition. Emotion: cognitive reappraisal. Decision: structured frameworks. Do NOT cross domains.\n6. **Reassess** — after 4–6 weeks re-run the audit. New bottleneck?\n\n**Gate:** Complete upstream map before tool selection. **Stop-rule:** Treating a symptom domain without identifying upstream cause → stop, re-run Step 3.\n\n### Output: Cognitive Domain Map\n\n```\nPRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)*\n\n## Cognitive Landscape Packs\n\n- **Learning & Education:** Working memory constraints explain chunking needs; emotion–cognition explains stress-suppressed retrieval; metacognition produces transfer. → Curriculum architects, tutors, platform designers.\n- **Leadership & Team Dynamics:** Social cognition attribution errors misread dissent; emotion–cognition under stress compresses decision options. → Executive coaches, org designers.\n- **AI System Design:** More options into overloaded working memory increases burden; not modeling emotional state presents correct info at the wrong moment. → UX designers, PMs, AI engineers.\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Require behavioral evidence before domain assignment — no hypothetical assignments.\n- Map upstream before tools — applying tools to downstream symptoms is the most common misuse.\n- One bottleneck at a time: minimum 4-week focused intervention before expanding.\n- Respect inter-domain coupling: Emotion–cognition (6) ↔ Decision (4); Attention (1) ↔ Memory (2).\n- Domain-specific interventions only. \"Cognitive reappraisal before high-stakes decisions\" is an intervention. \"Think harder\" is not.\n- Re-audit every 6–8 weeks — bottleneck domains shift.\n\n*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**\n\n| Fake move | Reality |\n|---|---|\n| [D] \"I'll just study decision frameworks.\" | Decision failures frequently have upstream causes in attention, emotion, or memory. Frameworks don't help while upstream domains interfere. |\n| [D] \"I've done memory training for months with no improvement.\" | Memory encoding depends on attention quality at input. Fragmented attention = spaced repetition has nothing good to reinforce. |\n| [D] \"We need communication training.\" | Communication failures often reside in social cognition or emotion–cognition coupling. Generic training addresses neither. |\n| [D] \"I'm creative, I don't need structure.\" | Divergent thinking produces options; convergent thinking selects the best. Skipping convergence = idea output without decision output. |\n| [D] \"I know all the cognitive biases — I won't be fooled.\" | Knowing biases doesn't reduce incidence. Metacognitive monitoring + structured protocols does. |\n| [D] \"Emotional intelligence is separate from cognition.\" | Emotion–cognition coupling (Domain 6) is bidirectional — emotional states directly alter attention, memory, and decision option-space. |\n| [D] \"I'll work on all eight domains at once.\" | Multi-domain simultaneous effort produces shallow progress. Single-bottleneck focus outperforms broad coverage. |\n| [D] \"My metacognition is excellent — I catch my own errors.\" | Metacognitive monitoring is subject to the same biases it monitors. High confidence is often inversely correlated with actual accuracy. |\n| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- **Domain circularity:** \"I forget because my memory is weak\" — symptom labeling, not upstream causal analysis.\n- **Single-domain fixation:** Plateau beyond 8 weeks despite targeted tools — almost certainly an unaddressed upstream dependency.\n- **Generic tool prescription:** Recommendation that doesn't name specific domain + mechanism + domain-appropriate tool.\n- **Emotion–cognition dissociation:** High decision ability in calm, inconsistent under stress — Domain 6 misdiagnosed as Domain 4.\n- **Metacognition overconfidence:** Claims reliable self-monitoring without a specific monitoring protocol.\n- **Landscape as trivia:** Using the taxonomy without applying it diagnostically — zero cognitive improvement.\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Primary bottleneck domain identified with specific, observable behavioral evidence\n- [ ] Upstream dependency chain: at least 2 candidate upstream domains evaluated and cleared or confirmed\n- [ ] Highest-cascade-leverage domain selected, not just most obvious\n- [ ] Domain-appropriate tool selected — not generic \"cognitive improvement\"\n- [ ] At least 2 inter-domain coupling effects documented\n- [ ] Stop-rule applied: intervention targets upstream cause, not downstream symptom\n- [ ] Reassessment date and measurement method specified\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 164 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. **See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape** · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.*\n\nFile v1.0.3:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.3\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783508208826\n}\n\nFile v1.0.3:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context.\n\nFile v1.0.3:examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md\n\n# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")\n\nFile v1.0.3:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nHelps agents diagnose cognitive bottlenecks across eight interconnected domains and map upstream dependencies before recommending domain-appropriate interventions. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nExternal users, coaches, educators, leaders, and AI system designers use this skill to diagnose which cognitive domain is driving a failure pattern, map upstream dependencies, and select a focused intervention. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Broad activation wording may cause the skill to engage for general self-improvement prompts or invite sensitive personal or workplace details in examples. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the request is cognitively rooted and avoid including sensitive personal or workplace details in shared notes or examples. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape) <br>\n- [Primary sources](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md) <br>\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology archive](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis) <br>\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158) <br>\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown with a structured Cognitive Domain Map] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Includes primary bottleneck, upstream dependencies, highest-leverage intervention, selected tool, measurement, and reassessment fields.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.3 (source: server release metadata) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.0.2: 5 files, 8741 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md (2370b), references/sources.md (1976b), skill-card.md (2460b), SKILL.md (9598b), _meta.json (146b)\n\nFile v1.0.2:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver).\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. **Name the payoff:** Once we locate your bottleneck and its upstream dependencies, you'll have a targeted plan — six months of progress vs. six years.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n1. **Describe the failure** in behavioral terms — not \"bad at decisions\" but \"I underweight low-probability risks under time pressure.\"\n2. **Primary domain identification** — match to one of 8: Perception & Attention / Memory / Language & Thought / Decision Making & Judgment / Metacognition / Emotion & Cognition / Social Cognition / Creativity & Innovation.\n3. **Map upstream influences** — which domains feed into the primary failure? Name the specific mechanism.\n4. **Prioritize by cascade** — which ONE upstream domain, if improved, cascades to the most other domains? That gets the first intervention.\n5. **Select domain-appropriate tools** — Attention: focus training. Memory: spaced repetition. Emotion: cognitive reappraisal. Decision: structured frameworks. Do NOT cross domains.\n6. **Reassess** — after 4–6 weeks re-run the audit. New bottleneck?\n\n**Gate:** Complete upstream map before tool selection. **Stop-rule:** Treating a symptom domain without identifying upstream cause → stop, re-run Step 3.\n\n### Output: Cognitive Domain Map\n\n```\nPRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)*\n\n## Cognitive Landscape Packs\n\n- **Learning & Education:** Working memory constraints explain chunking needs; emotion–cognition explains stress-suppressed retrieval; metacognition produces transfer. → Curriculum architects, tutors, platform designers.\n- **Leadership & Team Dynamics:** Social cognition attribution errors misread dissent; emotion–cognition under stress compresses decision options. → Executive coaches, org designers.\n- **AI System Design:** More options into overloaded working memory increases burden; not modeling emotional state presents correct info at the wrong moment. → UX designers, PMs, AI engineers.\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Require behavioral evidence before domain assignment — no hypothetical assignments.\n- Map upstream before tools — applying tools to downstream symptoms is the most common misuse.\n- One bottleneck at a time: minimum 4-week focused intervention before expanding.\n- Respect inter-domain coupling: Emotion–cognition (6) ↔ Decision (4); Attention (1) ↔ Memory (2).\n- Domain-specific interventions only. \"Cognitive reappraisal before high-stakes decisions\" is an intervention. \"Think harder\" is not.\n- Re-audit every 6–8 weeks — bottleneck domains shift.\n\n*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**\n\n| Fake move | Reality |\n|---|---|\n| [D] \"I'll just study decision frameworks.\" | Decision failures frequently have upstream causes in attention, emotion, or memory. Frameworks don't help while upstream domains interfere. |\n| [D] \"I've done memory training for months with no improvement.\" | Memory encoding depends on attention quality at input. Fragmented attention = spaced repetition has nothing good to reinforce. |\n| [D] \"We need communication training.\" | Communication failures often reside in social cognition or emotion–cognition coupling. Generic training addresses neither. |\n| [D] \"I'm creative, I don't need structure.\" | Divergent thinking produces options; convergent thinking selects the best. Skipping convergence = idea output without decision output. |\n| [D] \"I know all the cognitive biases — I won't be fooled.\" | Knowing biases doesn't reduce incidence. Metacognitive monitoring + structured protocols does. |\n| [D] \"Emotional intelligence is separate from cognition.\" | Emotion–cognition coupling (Domain 6) is bidirectional — emotional states directly alter attention, memory, and decision option-space. |\n| [D] \"I'll work on all eight domains at once.\" | Multi-domain simultaneous effort produces shallow progress. Single-bottleneck focus outperforms broad coverage. |\n| [D] \"My metacognition is excellent — I catch my own errors.\" | Metacognitive monitoring is subject to the same biases it monitors. High confidence is often inversely correlated with actual accuracy. |\n| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- **Domain circularity:** \"I forget because my memory is weak\" — symptom labeling, not upstream causal analysis.\n- **Single-domain fixation:** Plateau beyond 8 weeks despite targeted tools — almost certainly an unaddressed upstream dependency.\n- **Generic tool prescription:** Recommendation that doesn't name specific domain + mechanism + domain-appropriate tool.\n- **Emotion–cognition dissociation:** High decision ability in calm, inconsistent under stress — Domain 6 misdiagnosed as Domain 4.\n- **Metacognition overconfidence:** Claims reliable self-monitoring without a specific monitoring protocol.\n- **Landscape as trivia:** Using the taxonomy without applying it diagnostically — zero cognitive improvement.\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Primary bottleneck domain identified with specific, observable behavioral evidence\n- [ ] Upstream dependency chain: at least 2 candidate upstream domains evaluated and cleared or confirmed\n- [ ] Highest-cascade-leverage domain selected, not just most obvious\n- [ ] Domain-appropriate tool selected — not generic \"cognitive improvement\"\n- [ ] At least 2 inter-domain coupling effects documented\n- [ ] Stop-rule applied: intervention targets upstream cause, not downstream symptom\n- [ ] Reassessment date and measurement method specified\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 163 open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. The same skills power every deciqAI agent, which runs them autonomously to operate your company. **See it run → https://www.deciqai.com/skills/cognitive-science-landscape?utm_source=clawhub&utm_medium=marketplace&utm_campaign=knowledge-skills&utm_content=cognitive-science-landscape** · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.*\n\nFile v1.0.2:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783471262933\n}\n\nFile v1.0.2:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context.\n\nFile v1.0.2:examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md\n\n# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")\n\nFile v1.0.2:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nHelps an agent identify cognitive bottlenecks across eight interconnected domains, map upstream dependencies, and select a targeted intervention. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nExternal users, coaches, learning designers, leaders, product teams, and AI builders use this skill to diagnose cognitive failures, identify primary and upstream bottleneck domains, and choose targeted domain-appropriate interventions. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Broad activation rules may trigger the skill on general requests about thinking or decision-making. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the user wants a cognitive-domain bottleneck analysis before applying the full workflow. <br>\nRisk: Users may share personal or sensitive examples while working through coaching prompts. <br>\nMitigation: Avoid storing personal or sensitive examples in shared skill files unless that record is intentional. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [Sources - cognitive-science-landscape](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md) <br>\n- [Cognitive Science Landscape on ClawHub](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape) <br>\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis) <br>\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1) <br>\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown text with a structured Cognitive Domain Map] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [May ask step-by-step questions and pause for user input before completing the domain map.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.2 (source: server release evidence) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.0.1: 5 files, 8546 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md (2370b), references/sources.md (1976b), skill-card.md (2319b), SKILL.md (9316b), _meta.json (146b)\n\nFile v1.0.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver).\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. **Name the payoff:** Once we locate your bottleneck and its upstream dependencies, you'll have a targeted plan — six months of progress vs. six years.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n1. **Describe the failure** in behavioral terms — not \"bad at decisions\" but \"I underweight low-probability risks under time pressure.\"\n2. **Primary domain identification** — match to one of 8: Perception & Attention / Memory / Language & Thought / Decision Making & Judgment / Metacognition / Emotion & Cognition / Social Cognition / Creativity & Innovation.\n3. **Map upstream influences** — which domains feed into the primary failure? Name the specific mechanism.\n4. **Prioritize by cascade** — which ONE upstream domain, if improved, cascades to the most other domains? That gets the first intervention.\n5. **Select domain-appropriate tools** — Attention: focus training. Memory: spaced repetition. Emotion: cognitive reappraisal. Decision: structured frameworks. Do NOT cross domains.\n6. **Reassess** — after 4–6 weeks re-run the audit. New bottleneck?\n\n**Gate:** Complete upstream map before tool selection. **Stop-rule:** Treating a symptom domain without identifying upstream cause → stop, re-run Step 3.\n\n### Output: Cognitive Domain Map\n\n```\nPRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)*\n\n## Cognitive Landscape Packs\n\n- **Learning & Education:** Working memory constraints explain chunking needs; emotion–cognition explains stress-suppressed retrieval; metacognition produces transfer. → Curriculum architects, tutors, platform designers.\n- **Leadership & Team Dynamics:** Social cognition attribution errors misread dissent; emotion–cognition under stress compresses decision options. → Executive coaches, org designers.\n- **AI System Design:** More options into overloaded working memory increases burden; not modeling emotional state presents correct info at the wrong moment. → UX designers, PMs, AI engineers.\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Require behavioral evidence before domain assignment — no hypothetical assignments.\n- Map upstream before tools — applying tools to downstream symptoms is the most common misuse.\n- One bottleneck at a time: minimum 4-week focused intervention before expanding.\n- Respect inter-domain coupling: Emotion–cognition (6) ↔ Decision (4); Attention (1) ↔ Memory (2).\n- Domain-specific interventions only. \"Cognitive reappraisal before high-stakes decisions\" is an intervention. \"Think harder\" is not.\n- Re-audit every 6–8 weeks — bottleneck domains shift.\n\n*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**\n\n| Fake move | Reality |\n|---|---|\n| [D] \"I'll just study decision frameworks.\" | Decision failures frequently have upstream causes in attention, emotion, or memory. Frameworks don't help while upstream domains interfere. |\n| [D] \"I've done memory training for months with no improvement.\" | Memory encoding depends on attention quality at input. Fragmented attention = spaced repetition has nothing good to reinforce. |\n| [D] \"We need communication training.\" | Communication failures often reside in social cognition or emotion–cognition coupling. Generic training addresses neither. |\n| [D] \"I'm creative, I don't need structure.\" | Divergent thinking produces options; convergent thinking selects the best. Skipping convergence = idea output without decision output. |\n| [D] \"I know all the cognitive biases — I won't be fooled.\" | Knowing biases doesn't reduce incidence. Metacognitive monitoring + structured protocols does. |\n| [D] \"Emotional intelligence is separate from cognition.\" | Emotion–cognition coupling (Domain 6) is bidirectional — emotional states directly alter attention, memory, and decision option-space. |\n| [D] \"I'll work on all eight domains at once.\" | Multi-domain simultaneous effort produces shallow progress. Single-bottleneck focus outperforms broad coverage. |\n| [D] \"My metacognition is excellent — I catch my own errors.\" | Metacognitive monitoring is subject to the same biases it monitors. High confidence is often inversely correlated with actual accuracy. |\n| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- **Domain circularity:** \"I forget because my memory is weak\" — symptom labeling, not upstream causal analysis.\n- **Single-domain fixation:** Plateau beyond 8 weeks despite targeted tools — almost certainly an unaddressed upstream dependency.\n- **Generic tool prescription:** Recommendation that doesn't name specific domain + mechanism + domain-appropriate tool.\n- **Emotion–cognition dissociation:** High decision ability in calm, inconsistent under stress — Domain 6 misdiagnosed as Domain 4.\n- **Metacognition overconfidence:** Claims reliable self-monitoring without a specific monitoring protocol.\n- **Landscape as trivia:** Using the taxonomy without applying it diagnostically — zero cognitive improvement.\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Primary bottleneck domain identified with specific, observable behavioral evidence\n- [ ] Upstream dependency chain: at least 2 candidate upstream domains evaluated and cleared or confirmed\n- [ ] Highest-cascade-leverage domain selected, not just most obvious\n- [ ] Domain-appropriate tool selected — not generic \"cognitive improvement\"\n- [ ] At least 2 inter-domain coupling effects documented\n- [ ] Stop-rule applied: intervention targets upstream cause, not downstream symptom\n- [ ] Reassessment date and measurement method specified\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*\n\nFile v1.0.1:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.1\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783456266647\n}\n\nFile v1.0.1:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context.\n\nFile v1.0.1:examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md\n\n# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")\n\nFile v1.0.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nHelps an agent identify cognitive-domain bottlenecks, map upstream dependencies, and select domain-appropriate interventions for improving thinking, learning, communication, leadership, or AI-system design. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nExternal users, coaches, educators, team leaders, and AI builders use this skill to diagnose cognitive failure patterns, identify the primary bottleneck domain and upstream dependencies, and produce a targeted intervention plan. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: The skill may prompt discussion of sensitive personal failure patterns during cognitive coaching. <br>\nMitigation: Avoid recording, appending, or retaining sensitive personal details from real use unless that retention is explicitly intended. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape) <br>\n- [Sources - cognitive-science-landscape](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md) <br>\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis) <br>\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1) <br>\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown guidance with a structured cognitive domain map] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Includes primary bottleneck, upstream dependencies, intervention, selected tool, and reassessment fields.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.1 (source: server release metadata) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>\n\nArchive v1.0.0: 5 files, 8717 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md (2370b), references/sources.md (1976b), skill-card.md (2825b), SKILL.md (9316b), _meta.json (146b)\n\nFile v1.0.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver).\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. **Name the payoff:** Once we locate your bottleneck and its upstream dependencies, you'll have a targeted plan — six months of progress vs. six years.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n1. **Describe the failure** in behavioral terms — not \"bad at decisions\" but \"I underweight low-probability risks under time pressure.\"\n2. **Primary domain identification** — match to one of 8: Perception & Attention / Memory / Language & Thought / Decision Making & Judgment / Metacognition / Emotion & Cognition / Social Cognition / Creativity & Innovation.\n3. **Map upstream influences** — which domains feed into the primary failure? Name the specific mechanism.\n4. **Prioritize by cascade** — which ONE upstream domain, if improved, cascades to the most other domains? That gets the first intervention.\n5. **Select domain-appropriate tools** — Attention: focus training. Memory: spaced repetition. Emotion: cognitive reappraisal. Decision: structured frameworks. Do NOT cross domains.\n6. **Reassess** — after 4–6 weeks re-run the audit. New bottleneck?\n\n**Gate:** Complete upstream map before tool selection. **Stop-rule:** Treating a symptom domain without identifying upstream cause → stop, re-run Step 3.\n\n### Output: Cognitive Domain Map\n\n```\nPRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)*\n\n## Cognitive Landscape Packs\n\n- **Learning & Education:** Working memory constraints explain chunking needs; emotion–cognition explains stress-suppressed retrieval; metacognition produces transfer. → Curriculum architects, tutors, platform designers.\n- **Leadership & Team Dynamics:** Social cognition attribution errors misread dissent; emotion–cognition under stress compresses decision options. → Executive coaches, org designers.\n- **AI System Design:** More options into overloaded working memory increases burden; not modeling emotional state presents correct info at the wrong moment. → UX designers, PMs, AI engineers.\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Require behavioral evidence before domain assignment — no hypothetical assignments.\n- Map upstream before tools — applying tools to downstream symptoms is the most common misuse.\n- One bottleneck at a time: minimum 4-week focused intervention before expanding.\n- Respect inter-domain coupling: Emotion–cognition (6) ↔ Decision (4); Attention (1) ↔ Memory (2).\n- Domain-specific interventions only. \"Cognitive reappraisal before high-stakes decisions\" is an intervention. \"Think harder\" is not.\n- Re-audit every 6–8 weeks — bottleneck domains shift.\n\n*→ Primary sources: [references/sources.md](references/sources.md)*\n\n## Common Rationalizations\n\n**[D] = designed upfront | [O] = observed in real use. [O] entries are more valuable.**\n\n| Fake move | Reality |\n|---|---|\n| [D] \"I'll just study decision frameworks.\" | Decision failures frequently have upstream causes in attention, emotion, or memory. Frameworks don't help while upstream domains interfere. |\n| [D] \"I've done memory training for months with no improvement.\" | Memory encoding depends on attention quality at input. Fragmented attention = spaced repetition has nothing good to reinforce. |\n| [D] \"We need communication training.\" | Communication failures often reside in social cognition or emotion–cognition coupling. Generic training addresses neither. |\n| [D] \"I'm creative, I don't need structure.\" | Divergent thinking produces options; convergent thinking selects the best. Skipping convergence = idea output without decision output. |\n| [D] \"I know all the cognitive biases — I won't be fooled.\" | Knowing biases doesn't reduce incidence. Metacognitive monitoring + structured protocols does. |\n| [D] \"Emotional intelligence is separate from cognition.\" | Emotion–cognition coupling (Domain 6) is bidirectional — emotional states directly alter attention, memory, and decision option-space. |\n| [D] \"I'll work on all eight domains at once.\" | Multi-domain simultaneous effort produces shallow progress. Single-bottleneck focus outperforms broad coverage. |\n| [D] \"My metacognition is excellent — I catch my own errors.\" | Metacognitive monitoring is subject to the same biases it monitors. High confidence is often inversely correlated with actual accuracy. |\n| *→ Add [O] entries here after each real use — paste the actual failure pattern* | *What went wrong and why* |\n\n## Red Flags\n\n- **Domain circularity:** \"I forget because my memory is weak\" — symptom labeling, not upstream causal analysis.\n- **Single-domain fixation:** Plateau beyond 8 weeks despite targeted tools — almost certainly an unaddressed upstream dependency.\n- **Generic tool prescription:** Recommendation that doesn't name specific domain + mechanism + domain-appropriate tool.\n- **Emotion–cognition dissociation:** High decision ability in calm, inconsistent under stress — Domain 6 misdiagnosed as Domain 4.\n- **Metacognition overconfidence:** Claims reliable self-monitoring without a specific monitoring protocol.\n- **Landscape as trivia:** Using the taxonomy without applying it diagnostically — zero cognitive improvement.\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] Primary bottleneck domain identified with specific, observable behavioral evidence\n- [ ] Upstream dependency chain: at least 2 candidate upstream domains evaluated and cleared or confirmed\n- [ ] Highest-cascade-leverage domain selected, not just most obvious\n- [ ] Domain-appropriate tool selected — not generic \"cognitive improvement\"\n- [ ] At least 2 inter-domain coupling effects documented\n- [ ] Stop-rule applied: intervention targets upstream cause, not downstream symptom\n- [ ] Reassessment date and measurement method specified\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — open-source thinking skills that make rigor executable for AI agents. Built by deciqAI · https://deciqai.com · Contributions welcome — see the template at the repo root.*\n\nFile v1.0.0:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1782533839815\n}\n\nFile v1.0.0:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context.\n\nFile v1.0.0:examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md\n\n# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")\n\nFile v1.0.0:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nMaps cognitive failures across eight interconnected domains, identifies the primary bottleneck and upstream dependencies, and guides selection of a targeted intervention. <br>\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use. <br>\n\n## Publisher: <br>\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai) <br>\n\n### License/Terms of Use: <br>\nMIT-0 <br>\n\n\n## Use Case: <br>\nExternal users and agents use this skill to diagnose broad thinking, learning, decision-making, communication, or cognitive-performance problems by identifying the cognitive domain bottleneck and upstream dependencies before recommending an intervention. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: The broad activation language may select this skill when a more specific cognitive-domain skill is already appropriate. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the user's concrete case and switch to a more specific skill when the cognitive domain or problem type is already clear. <br>\nRisk: Users may treat reflective cognitive coaching as medical or mental-health advice. <br>\nMitigation: Frame outputs as coaching guidance only, avoid diagnosis or treatment claims, and direct clinical or mental-health concerns to qualified professionals. <br>\nRisk: An unsupported domain assignment can lead to ineffective or misleading interventions. <br>\nMitigation: Require observable behavioral evidence and map upstream dependencies before recommending domain-specific tools. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub Skill Page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape) <br>\n- [Sources - Cognitive Science Landscape](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md) <br>\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis) <br>\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1) <br>\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown coaching response with a cognitive domain map] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [May pause for user responses in coach mode; requires user-specific behavioral evidence before domain assignment.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.0 (source: server release evidence) <br>\n\n## Ethical Considerations: <br>\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment. <br>","readmeExcerpt":"Skill: Cognitive Science Landscape Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t... Tags: latest:1.0.4 Version history: v1.0.4 | 2026-07-16T17:54:33.705Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json) v1.0.3 | 202","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"text","snippet":"PRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"PRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"PRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"PRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]"},{"language":"text","snippet":"PRIMARY BOTTLENECK: [domain] | Failure: [observable behavior] | Evidence: ___\nUPSTREAM DEPENDENCIES: [domain] — Mechanism: ___ — Severity [1-5]; [domain] — ___ — ___\nHIGHEST-LEVERAGE INTERVENTION: ___ | Why: ___\nSELECTED TOOL: ___ | Target behavior: ___ | Measure: ___ | Reassess: ___\nDOMAINS CLEARED: [list]"}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nname: cognitive-science-landscape\ndescription: \"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's the full picture of how the mind works,' or is about to apply a single cognitive intervention without understanding which domain is the bottleneck.\n  Do NOT activate when: the specific cognitive domain is already clearly identified and scoped (use domain-specific tools instead); the problem is not cognitively rooted (resource constraints, politics, or external environment are the driver). More: deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape\"\n---\n\n# Cognitive Science Landscape\n\n## Overview\n\nEight interconnected domains constitute human cognition: (1) Perception & Attention, (2) Memory, (3) Language & Thought, (4) Decision Making & Judgment, (5) Metacognition, (6) Emotion & Cognition, (7) Social Cognition, (8) Creativity & Innovation. Treating them in isolation produces local improvements systematically undermined by adjacent unaddressed weaknesses. The skill is NOT listing all eight domains — it is identifying which domain is the bottleneck and tracing its upstream dependencies.\n\n**Cross-skill composition:** Use BEFORE [metacognition] (covers domain 5 of 8 only). Use WITH [cognitive-evolution-stages]: landscape = WHAT domains exist; evolution stages = how competence within any domain develops.\n\n## When to Use\n\n- A cognitive intervention (memory training, decision frameworks, mindfulness) is not producing results\n- Designing a learning or development program — avoid tunnel vision on one domain\n- Communication failures, team problems, or leadership gaps with a cognitive origin\n- Building AI systems that model or augment human cognition\n- Someone says \"think better\" without specifying which domain is the bottleneck\n\n**When NOT to use:** Domain already clearly identified (use domain-specific tools); problem is not cognitively rooted; immediate decision needed under time pressure.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or says \"I want to think better\" → guide step by step.\n\nIn Coach mode, respond one step at a time. Each [WAIT] is a hard stop — output only that step's question, then stop.\n\n1. **What it is:** A map of 8 interconnected mental systems — locating your specific weakness lets us design an intervention that hits the right target.\n2. **Check fit:** Does your challenge involve memory, attention, decisions, self-monitoring, emotions, or social cognition? Which resonates?\n3. **Elicit the real case:** Walk me through the specific situation. What were you trying to do, and where did things go wrong?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. **Domain identification first:** Map the failure to a domain, then check which upstream domain may be causing it — don't jump to solutions.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**"},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"cognitive-science-landscape\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.4\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1784224473705\n}"},{"path":"references/sources.md","content":"# Sources — cognitive-science-landscape\n\n> *Primary sources for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n**Primary Source 1:**\nNeisser, U. (1967). *Cognitive Psychology*. Appleton-Century-Crofts. Archive: https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis\n\nVerbatim: \"As used here, the term 'cognition' refers to all the processes by which the sensory input is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used... Such terms as sensation, perception, imagery, retention, recall, problem-solving, and thinking, among others, refer to hypothetical stages or aspects of cognition.\" (p. 4)\n\n**Primary Source 2:**\nBaddeley, A.D., & Hitch, G. (1974). Working memory. In G.H. Bower (Ed.), *The Psychology of Learning and Motivation*, Vol. 8, pp. 47–89. Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1\n\nVerbatim: \"We wish to suggest that temporary storage of information does not rely on a single unitary store, but on a system of limited capacity... involving at least two separate storage components.\" (p. 48)\n\n**Primary Source 3:**\nMiller, G.A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nVerbatim: \"My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals.\" (p. 81) — the opening establishing that working memory capacity is a real and consistent constraint.\n\n**What is NOT cited and why:** Specific neuroscience imaging studies (fMRI) on cognitive domains are not cited because this skill addresses the functional and behavioral architecture of cognition, not its neural substrate — the landscape is a functional map, not a neuroanatomical one. Neuroimaging research would require a separate skill for that specific application context."},{"path":"examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md","content":"# Method in Action: The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science (1956)\n\n> *Example for the [cognitive-science-landscape](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nBefore 1956, what we now call cognition was studied in isolated disciplinary silos. Behaviorism (Watson, Skinner) studied only observable behavior and explicitly excluded mental processes. Neurology studied brain structure without behavioral integration. Linguistics studied language without reference to the mental processes generating it. These disciplines could not explain each other's phenomena.\n\nThe September 1956 MIT \"Symposium on Information Theory\" changed this. In two days, three landmark papers appeared: George Miller presented \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two,\" identifying the ~7-item capacity constraint of working memory. Noam Chomsky presented a critique of Markov process models of language, establishing that grammar was not stimulus-response learning but structural computation. Allen Newell and Herbert Simon presented the Logic Theorist, demonstrating that problem-solving could be modeled as heuristic search through a problem space.\n\nWhen placed in a single framework, the interactions became immediately visible and scientifically productive. Miller's working memory limits constrained Chomsky's syntactic structures: deep-embedding sentences that respected grammatical rules but violated working-memory capacity were hard to parse not because they were ungrammatical but because they overloaded the working memory buffer. Newell and Simon's problem-solving models required an attention-allocation mechanism — selecting which node in the problem space to expand next — that linked directly to Miller's capacity limits.\n\nThe integrated landscape did not just organize existing knowledge — it generated new research questions that isolated disciplines could not have formulated. This is the operative value of a landscape map: it reveals interactions that are invisible in the silos.\n\nPrimary source: Miller, G.A. (1956). \"The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our Capacity for Processing Information.\" *Psychological Review*, 63(2), 81–97. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158\n\nSecondary source: Gardner, H. (1985). *The Mind's New Science: A History of the Cognitive Revolution*. Basic Books. (Chapter 5: \"The Key Players and the Watershed Year.\")"},{"path":"skill-card.md","content":"## Description:\n\nHelps agents identify the cognitive domain behind a thinking or performance failure, map upstream dependencies, and select a domain-appropriate intervention.\n\nThis skill is ready for commercial/non-commercial use.\n\n## Publisher:\n\n[deciqai](https://clawhub.ai/user/deciqai)\n\n### License/Terms of Use:\n\nMIT-0\n\n## Use Case:\n\nExternal users, developers, coaches, educators, and team leads use this skill to diagnose cognitive bottlenecks before choosing interventions for learning, decision-making, communication, leadership, or AI system design workflows.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill text asks agents to paste real user failure patterns back into SKILL.md, which could capture sensitive or personal user data in a reusable runtime file.\n\nMitigation: Keep packaged skill files read-only during use, and record only generalized, reviewed, anonymized observations outside the runtime skill context.\n\nRisk: The skill can produce misleading cognitive recommendations if an agent assigns a domain without concrete behavioral evidence.\n\nMitigation: Require observable evidence, map upstream dependencies before selecting tools, and reassess the intervention after the stated 4-6 week audit window.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/cognitive-science-landscape)\n- [Cognitive Science Landscape product page](https://www.deciqai.com/c/cognitive-science-landscape)\n- [Machine-readable skill metadata](https://www.deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json)\n- [Sources](references/sources.md)\n- [The 1956 MIT Symposium and the Birth of Cognitive Science](examples/the-1956-mit-symposium-and-the-birth-of-cognitive-science-1956.md)\n- [Neisser, Cognitive Psychology](https://archive.org/details/cognitivepsychol00neis)\n- [Baddeley and Hitch, Working Memory](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-7421(08)60452-1)\n- [Miller, The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two](https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043158)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown diagnostic map and coaching guidance]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [May include stepwise questions, domain mapping, upstream dependency analysis, intervention selection, and reassessment criteria.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.0.4 (source: server release evidence)\n\n## Ethical Considerations:\n\nUsers should evaluate whether this skill is appropriate for their environment, review any generated or modified files before relying on them, and apply their organization's safety, security, and compliance requirements before deployment."}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t... Skill: Cognitive Science Landscape Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: user says 'I want to improve my thinking,' 'why does my decision-making keep failing,' 'how do I optimize my cognitive performance,' 'what's t... Tags: latest:1.0.4 Version history: v1.0.4 | 2026-07-16T17:54:33.705Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/cognitive-science-landscape.json) v1.0.3 | 202","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":1721,"uniquenessScore":52,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":"No screenshots, media assets, or demo links are available."},"primaryImageUrl":null,"mediaAssetCount":0,"assets":[],"demoUrl":null},"ownerResources":{"evidence":{"source":"unclaimed","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T17:15:15.455Z","emptyReason":"This page has not been claimed by the agent owner."},"hasCustomPage":false,"customPageUpdatedAt":null,"customLinks":[],"structuredLinks":{"docsUrl":null,"demoUrl":null,"supportUrl":null,"pricingUrl":null,"statusUrl":null},"customPage":null},"relatedAgents":{"evidence":{"source":"protocol-neighbors","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T20:59:03.288Z","emptyReason":null},"items":[{"id":"8ebccd8e-3863-4187-8355-c3f14e1f9edf","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/iofficeai-aionui","slug":"iofficeai-aionui","name":"AionUi","description":"Free, local, open-source 24/7 Cowork app and OpenClaw for Gemini CLI, Claude Code, Codex, OpenCode, Qwen Code, Goose CLI, Auggie, and more | 🌟 Star if you like it!","url":"https://github.com/iOfficeAI/AionUi","homepage":"https://www.aionui.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-10-09T19:11:12.944Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:16.584Z","downloads":null},{"id":"b917f68a-ebff-438e-84f8-3f4b2494c0bc","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/activepieces-activepieces","slug":"activepieces-activepieces","name":"activepieces","description":"AI Agents & MCPs & AI Workflow Automation • (~400 MCP servers for AI agents) • AI Automation / AI Agent with MCPs • AI Workflows & AI Agents • MCPs for AI Agents","url":"https://github.com/activepieces/activepieces","homepage":"https://www.activepieces.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-15T02:22:12.426Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:12.412Z","downloads":null},{"id":"5cb26759-3a39-483f-94cf-276a98c13bb8","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/cherryhq-cherry-studio","slug":"cherryhq-cherry-studio","name":"cherry-studio","description":"AI productivity studio with smart chat, autonomous agents, and 300+ assistants. Unified access to frontier LLMs","url":"https://github.com/CherryHQ/cherry-studio","homepage":"https://cherry-ai.com","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["MCP","OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-04-11T14:38:40.986Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:38:19.379Z","downloads":null},{"id":"6f6582d0-5d76-4f0f-b81d-86520247950b","entityType":"agent","canonicalPath":"/agent/copilotkit-copilotkit","slug":"copilotkit-copilotkit","name":"CopilotKit","description":"The Frontend for Agents & Generative UI. React + Angular","url":"https://github.com/CopilotKit/CopilotKit","homepage":"https://docs.copilotkit.ai","source":"GITHUB_REPOS","protocols":["OPENCLAW"],"capabilities":[],"safetyScore":100,"overallRank":70,"updatedAt":"2026-03-25T09:50:57.846Z","createdAt":"2026-02-25T03:39:14.617Z","downloads":null}],"links":{"hub":"/agent","source":"/agent/source/clawhub","protocols":[{"label":"OpenClaw","href":"/agent/protocol/openclew"}]}}}