{"id":"622f9033-958d-4fc3-a7e6-c7aa403d8ed7","entityType":"agent","slug":"clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop","name":"OODA Loop","canonicalUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/agent/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop","canonicalPath":"/agent/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T14:13:22.334Z","source":"CLAWHUB","claimStatus":"UNCLAIMED","verificationTier":"NONE","summary":{"evidence":{"source":"editorial-content","verified":true,"confidence":"high","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","emptyReason":null},"description":"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should... Skill: OODA Loop Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should... Tags: latest:1.0.5 Version history: v1.0.5 | 2026-07-16T18:09:44.554Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json) v1.0.4 | 2026-07-09T11:19:51.164Z | user Refresh","descriptionLabel":"Technical summary","evidenceSummary":"Capability contract not published. No trust telemetry is available yet. 1.1K downloads reported by the source. Last updated 10/11/2026.","installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17a4mqcnk515kvaca5ze55d0x88pfpx:ooda-loop","sourceUrl":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/ooda-loop","homepage":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop","primaryLinks":[{"label":"View on ClawHub","url":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/ooda-loop","kind":"source"},{"label":"Homepage","url":"https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop","kind":"homepage"}],"safetyScore":84,"overallRank":62,"popularityScore":61,"trustScore":null,"claimedByName":null,"isOwner":false,"seoDescription":"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should..."},"coverage":{"evidence":{"source":"public-profile","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","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":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","emptyReason":null},"stars":null,"forks":null,"downloads":1081,"packageName":null,"latestVersion":"1.0.5","tractionLabel":"1.1K downloads"},"release":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"medium","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.313Z","emptyReason":null},"lastUpdatedAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","lastCrawledAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.313Z","lastIndexedAt":null,"nextCrawlAt":"2026-10-12T11:03:50.313Z","lastVerifiedAt":null,"highlights":[{"version":"1.0.5","createdAt":"2026-07-16T18:09:44.554Z","changelog":"Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json)","fileCount":7,"zipByteSize":16168},{"version":"1.0.4","createdAt":"2026-07-09T11:19:51.164Z","changelog":"Refresh: 2024-2026 AI-era worked examples added (strategy/leadership + systems/game-theory batch)","fileCount":7,"zipByteSize":15972},{"version":"1.0.3","createdAt":"2026-07-08T11:13:16.120Z","changelog":"Footer now uses /c/<slug> short link (fixes UTM truncation when SKILL.md is read in a terminal)","fileCount":6,"zipByteSize":12000},{"version":"1.0.2","createdAt":"2026-07-08T00:57:52.492Z","changelog":"Refreshed content + GitHub star link in footer","fileCount":6,"zipByteSize":11903},{"version":"1.0.1","createdAt":"2026-07-07T22:31:28.092Z","changelog":"Add catalog categories and topics","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8811},{"version":"1.0.0","createdAt":"2026-07-01T11:17:21.943Z","changelog":"Initial publish","fileCount":5,"zipByteSize":8794}]},"execution":{"evidence":{"source":"CLAWHUB","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":null,"emptyReason":"No published capability contract is available yet."},"installCommand":"clawhub skill install s17a4mqcnk515kvaca5ze55d0x88pfpx:ooda-loop","setupComplexity":"low","setupSteps":["Setup complexity is classified as HIGH. You must provision dedicated cloud infrastructure or an isolated VM. Do not run this directly on your local workstation.","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-ooda-loop/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/trust"},"curlExamples":["curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/snapshot\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/contract\"","curl -s \"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/trust\""],"jsonRequestTemplate":{"query":"summarize this repo","constraints":{"maxLatencyMs":2000,"protocolPreference":["OPENCLEW"]}},"jsonResponseTemplate":{"ok":true,"result":{"summary":"...","confidence":0.9},"meta":{"source":"CLAWHUB","generatedAt":"2026-10-11T14:13:22.330Z"}},"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-ooda-loop/dossier","snapshotUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/snapshot","contractUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/contract","trustUrl":"https://www.xpersona.co/api/v1/agents/clawhub-deciqai-ooda-loop/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":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","emptyReason":null},"readme":"Skill: OODA Loop\n\nOwner: deciqai\n\nSummary: Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should...\n\nTags: latest:1.0.5\n\nVersion history:\n\nv1.0.5 | 2026-07-16T18:09:44.554Z | user\n\nDescription tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json)\n\nv1.0.4 | 2026-07-09T11:19:51.164Z | user\n\nRefresh: 2024-2026 AI-era worked examples added (strategy/leadership + systems/game-theory batch)\n\nv1.0.3 | 2026-07-08T11:13:16.120Z | user\n\nFooter now uses /c/<slug> short link (fixes UTM truncation when SKILL.md is read in a terminal)\n\nv1.0.2 | 2026-07-08T00:57:52.492Z | user\n\nRefreshed content + GitHub star link in footer\n\nv1.0.1 | 2026-07-07T22:31:28.092Z | user\n\nAdd catalog categories and topics\n\nv1.0.0 | 2026-07-01T11:17:21.943Z | user\n\nInitial publish\n\nArchive index:\n\nArchive v1.0.5: 7 files, 16168 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md (7385b), examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md (5266b), examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1639b), skill-card.md (2788b), SKILL.md (8444b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.5:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality. More: deciqai.com/c/ooda-loop\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with `metacognition` (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), `feedback-loops` (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), `first-principles` (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and `momentum-and-form` (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n- AI-native startup out-shipping a slower incumbent as model capabilities shift monthly (AI adoption, AI capex, ship-on-release-day tempo)\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) · [Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)*\n*→ 2026 lens: [AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)](examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\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/ooda-loop** · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.*\n\n*Agents: latest version & machine-readable metadata → https://www.deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json*\n\nFile v1.0.5:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.5\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1784225384554\n}\n\nFile v1.0.5:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n- Stanford HAI (2024, 2025). *Artificial Intelligence Index Report.* Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI. https://aiindex.stanford.edu — tracks frontier-model release frequency, capability trends, and the growth of open-weight models; background for the 2024–2026 AI-competition example.\n- Frontier-lab public release announcements (2023–2025): OpenAI (openai.com/blog), Anthropic (anthropic.com/news), and Google DeepMind (deepmind.google) model-release pages — primary, durable documentation of the accelerating release cadence referenced in the 2024–2026 example.\n\nFile v1.0.5:examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md\n\n# Method in Action: AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a dogfight; the Gulf War case shows it at theater scale. The 2024–2026 AI wave shows the same mechanism in a market where the *ground itself* — the underlying model capability — moves faster than most incumbents' planning cycles. When a frontier model release can reset what is buildable every few weeks, the strategic variable is no longer who has the most engineers or capital; it is who can Observe a new capability, re-Orient a product around it, Decide, and ship before the advantage decays.\n\nThis is a *pattern* case, not a single-company case: it maps the OODA structure common to how AI-native startups repeatedly beat larger, slower rivals during this period. Where a specific fact is not durably public, it is described in qualified terms rather than invented.\n\n**The environment: monthly capability shocks.** Across 2023–2025 the frontier moved on a cadence measured in weeks to months, not years — successive releases from multiple labs (OpenAI's GPT-4 and later models, Anthropic's Claude family, Google's Gemini, and a wave of strong open-weight models such as Meta's Llama and Mistral's releases) meant that a capability which was a moat one quarter was a commodity API call the next. In OODA terms, the *tempo of the battlefield itself* accelerated. That is the condition under which cycle-time advantage compounds fastest.\n\nNow the mapped steps.\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop (the AI-native startup).** Observe: a small team watches model releases, changelogs, and developer chatter directly — often within hours of a release. Orient: because the team is small and un-committed to a legacy architecture, it re-frames \"what is now buildable\" quickly. Decide: founders hold decision rights, so a pivot needs no committee. Act: a thin product wrapped around model APIs can ship an update in days. Total loop: on the order of days to a couple of weeks.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop (the incumbent).** A large incumbent Observes the same release but through slower channels (strategy reviews, analyst briefings). Orient is anchored to an existing roadmap, an installed base, and prior investments — synthesis is heavy and politically loaded. Decide runs through planning cycles, legal, and brand review. Act is gated by release trains, integration testing, and backward-compatibility obligations. Total loop: frequently a quarter or more. The *relative* gap — days versus a quarter — is the whole story.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** For the startup the binding constraint is usually **Act** (can we ship the new capability into the product fast enough?), and the accelerant is a thin, deploy-often architecture. For the incumbent the bottleneck is almost never Observe — they see the release too — it is **Orient and Decide**: re-framing around a capability that may cannibalize an existing line, then getting sign-off. Boyd's core claim holds precisely here: the incumbent's larger resources speed up the stages that are *not* the bottleneck, so they do not help.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** This is where fast cycling can still lose. A startup that re-orients around every release with no durable thesis produces well-coordinated churn — a new demo each month, no retained users. The disciplined version keeps Orient *fast but grounded*: a stable view of a real user job (see [`jobs-to-be-done`](../jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md)) that new model capability is plugged into, rather than a product whose only thesis is \"we use the newest model.\" Across this period, a recurring pattern was thin \"wrapper\" products whose Orient was fast and empty struggling to retain users; the durable winners paired fast Orient with a stable problem definition.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Startup Act: continuous deployment, model-provider abstraction so a better model can be swapped in without a rewrite, and evaluation harnesses so quality regressions are caught fast rather than blocking releases. Incumbent countermove (rarely executed well): create a small, separately-governed unit with its own decision rights and release train, deliberately exempt from the main planning cycle — an attempt to buy back the Orient/Decide speed that scale destroyed.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** The startup ships a capability the day a new model unlocks it; by the time the incumbent's committee has oriented and approved a response, that response targets the startup's *previous* version, not its current one. Each incumbent move addresses an obsolete picture — Boyd's exact end-state, now playing out in product roadmaps instead of desert armor. The startup's advantage is not that its move is better in isolation; it is that the opponent is perpetually responding to a state that no longer exists.\n\n**The reversal risk — and why incumbents sometimes win anyway.** OODA does not promise the fast side always wins; it promises the *relatively faster orienter* wins. Two forces can flip the outcome. First, incumbents own distribution, data, and switching costs — if they can Orient fast enough to ship a \"good-enough\" version of the startup's feature to an installed base, tempo advantage is neutralized by reach. Second, once frontier capability plateaus, the battlefield stops moving monthly, cycle-time advantage decays in value, and the durable moats (distribution, proprietary data, trust) reassert. The lesson is Boyd's, not a growth-hacking slogan: cycle-time advantage is decisive *while the environment is changing faster than the slow side can Orient* — and it is worth exactly as much as the volatility that produces it.\n\nThe mapped steps, in one view:\n1. Map your loop: startup Observe→Act runs in days; founder decision rights and thin architecture keep every stage short.\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: incumbent runs a quarter-plus; Observe is fine, Orient/Decide are heavy.\n3. Find the bottleneck: startup = Act (ship speed); incumbent = Orient/Decide (re-framing + sign-off) — extra resources speed the wrong stages.\n4. Test Orient quality: fast Orient must be anchored to a stable user job, or fast cycling just produces empty churn.\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: continuous deploy + model abstraction + eval harness (startup); carve out an autonomous unit (incumbent's only real fix).\n6. Get inside the loop: ship on release day so every incumbent response targets your last version — until capability plateaus and distribution moats reassert.\n\n*Sources: Boyd, J. R. \"Patterns of Conflict\" (tempo and relative cycle time). Osinga, F. P. B. (2007), *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd*, Routledge — on Orient as the decisive stage. For the 2024–2026 competitive backdrop, the frontier-model release cadence and the rise of open-weight models are widely and durably documented in the labs' own public release announcements (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind) and in Stanford HAI's *AI Index Report* (2024 and 2025 editions), which track model release frequency and capability trends. Specific company-versus-company outcomes are described as a recurring pattern rather than attributed to any single un-cited event.*\n\nFile v1.0.5:examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md\n\n# Method in Action: The Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989–1991)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a single dogfight. The 1991 Gulf War shows the same mechanism at the scale of a theater campaign — and shows the loop being deliberately *engineered* rather than inherited from cockpit design.\n\n**The doctrinal setup.** Through the 1980s, Boyd delivered his \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing hundreds of times to military audiences. The US Marine Corps, under Commandant Al Gray, codified the result in *Warfighting* (FMFM 1, 1989; reissued as MCDP 1, 1997), which made **tempo** — operating at a faster cycle than the enemy can process — a central doctrinal concept, replacing attrition warfare with maneuver warfare. Coram (2002) documents that during Desert Storm planning, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney — who had attended Boyd's briefings as a congressman — called Boyd in to discuss the ground-campaign concept, and rejected an early head-on assault plan into Kuwait in favor of a wide envelopment.\n\n**Degrading the opponent's Observe.** The coalition air campaign (opening January 17, 1991) systematically destroyed Iraqi radar, reconnaissance, and command-and-control before any ground movement began. Iraq's Observe stage was not merely slower — it was blinded, while coalition satellites and JSTARS aircraft watched the whole theater.\n\n**Corrupting the opponent's Orient.** Coalition deception fed Iraqi command exactly the picture it already expected: Marine amphibious forces rehearsed landings offshore, and demonstrations near the Wadi al-Batin reinforced the assumption of a frontal attack into Kuwait. Iraqi orientation locked onto a coastal-and-frontal defense — a framework inherited from expectation, never updated against reality, because the instruments for updating it had been destroyed.\n\n**Stalling the opponent's Decide.** Iraq's rigid, top-down command style required decisions to flow through Baghdad. With communications cut, subordinate commanders could neither report accurately nor receive timely orders. The Decide stage did not just slow; it effectively stopped.\n\n**Out-cycling on Act.** Meanwhile the coalition shifted two entire corps (XVIII Airborne and VII Corps) hundreds of kilometers west along the Saudi border, undetected. When the ground offensive opened on February 24, 1991, the main effort swept through the lightly defended western desert and hooked behind the Iraqi army in Kuwait — the \"left hook.\" By the time Iraqi commanders understood where the main attack actually was, coalition armor was already behind them; every Iraqi response addressed a coalition position that no longer existed. The ground war ended in roughly 100 hours, with mass surrenders of units that were physically intact but organizationally paralyzed — Boyd's predicted end-state of an opponent whose actions have become disconnected from reality.\n\nAfter Boyd's death in 1997, Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak publicly credited him as an architect of the Desert Storm victory as surely as if he had commanded a maneuver division in the desert (tribute reproduced in Coram, 2002).\n\nTwo operational lessons distinguish this case from the Korean War origin:\n\n**First, the loop advantage was designed, not found.** The F-86's edge came from cockpit hardware nobody planned as an OODA weapon. Desert Storm inverted that: doctrine identified tempo as the strategic variable first, then the campaign was built to create the cycle-time gap. When you control the plan, you can choose which of the opponent's stages to attack.\n\n**Second, degrading the opponent's loop counts double.** Steps 5-6 of The Process say accelerate your bottleneck and get inside their loop — but the fastest way inside is often to slow *them* down: blind their Observe, feed their Orient a stale picture, cut the channels their Decide depends on. Relative cycle time is the variable, and it has two sides.\n\nThe mapped steps:\n1. Map your loop: coalition planning built explicit tempo advantage into the campaign — doctrine (*Warfighting*) named cycle speed as the strategic variable before the war began\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: Iraqi command known to be centralized and slow; every coalition move was designed against that specific bottleneck\n3. Find the bottleneck — and attack theirs: air campaign targeted Iraqi Observe (sensors) and Decide (command-and-control), not just forces\n4. Test Orient quality: deception operations deliberately *froze* Iraqi Orient on an obsolete frontal-assault model; coalition Orient stayed current via theater-wide surveillance\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: the westward shift of two corps compressed coalition Act to a speed Iraq could not track\n6. Get inside the opponent's loop: 100-hour ground war — Iraqi responses targeted the coalition's last position throughout, and collapse preceded comprehension\n\nPrimary sources: Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880 (Gulf War planning and Krulak tribute, epilogue chapters). US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (FMFM 1 / MCDP 1) — the doctrinal codification of tempo and maneuver warfare.\n\nFile v1.0.5:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.5:skill-card.md\n\n## Description:\n\nApplies the OODA Loop decision framework to competitive, crisis, and time-sensitive situations by mapping Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act cycles, identifying bottlenecks, and recommending targeted acceleration.\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 and business, operations, product, and incident-response teams use this skill to assess whether a slower decision loop is causing competitive disadvantage and to choose which OODA stage to improve first.\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use:\n\nGlobal\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations:\n\nRisk: The skill may over-apply a competitive speed lens because its activation wording is broad.\n\nMitigation: Use it when the situation is genuinely competitive, adversarial, crisis-driven, or time-sensitive; otherwise prefer slower deliberation or another planning framework.\n\nRisk: Accelerating a decision loop without improving orientation quality can produce faster wrong decisions.\n\nMitigation: Assess whether mental models fit the situation, check for confirmation filtering, and review decision quality before accelerating the loop.\n\nRisk: Guidance may bias users toward speed in irreversible or high-impact decisions.\n\nMitigation: Separate reversible from irreversible decisions and preserve deliberation where consequences require higher assurance.\n\n## Reference(s):\n\n- [OODA Loop skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop)\n- [OODA Loop public method page](https://www.deciqai.com/c/ooda-loop)\n- [OODA Loop machine-readable metadata](https://www.deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json)\n- [Primary sources](references/sources.md)\n- [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md)\n- [Gulf War Left Hook and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)\n- [AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents](examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md)\n- [Stanford HAI AI Index](https://aiindex.stanford.edu)\n\n## Skill Output:\n\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance]\n\n**Output Format:** [Markdown analysis template with concise bullets and step-by-step coaching questions]\n\n**Output Parameters:** [1D]\n\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Requires a concrete competitive or time-sensitive situation; includes checks for orientation quality and decision reversibility.]\n\n## Skill Version(s):\n\n1.0.5 (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 v1.0.4: 7 files, 15972 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md (7385b), examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md (5266b), examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1639b), skill-card.md (2590b), SKILL.md (8315b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.4:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality.\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with `metacognition` (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), `feedback-loops` (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), `first-principles` (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and `momentum-and-form` (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n- AI-native startup out-shipping a slower incumbent as model capabilities shift monthly (AI adoption, AI capex, ship-on-release-day tempo)\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) · [Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)*\n*→ 2026 lens: [AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)](examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\n\n---\n\n*Part of **deciqAI Knowledge Skills** — 189 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/ooda-loop** · ⭐ Star the repo → https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills · Contributions welcome.*\n\nFile v1.0.4:_meta.json\n\n{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.4\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783595991164\n}\n\nFile v1.0.4:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n- Stanford HAI (2024, 2025). *Artificial Intelligence Index Report.* Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI. https://aiindex.stanford.edu — tracks frontier-model release frequency, capability trends, and the growth of open-weight models; background for the 2024–2026 AI-competition example.\n- Frontier-lab public release announcements (2023–2025): OpenAI (openai.com/blog), Anthropic (anthropic.com/news), and Google DeepMind (deepmind.google) model-release pages — primary, durable documentation of the accelerating release cadence referenced in the 2024–2026 example.\n\nFile v1.0.4:examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md\n\n# Method in Action: AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a dogfight; the Gulf War case shows it at theater scale. The 2024–2026 AI wave shows the same mechanism in a market where the *ground itself* — the underlying model capability — moves faster than most incumbents' planning cycles. When a frontier model release can reset what is buildable every few weeks, the strategic variable is no longer who has the most engineers or capital; it is who can Observe a new capability, re-Orient a product around it, Decide, and ship before the advantage decays.\n\nThis is a *pattern* case, not a single-company case: it maps the OODA structure common to how AI-native startups repeatedly beat larger, slower rivals during this period. Where a specific fact is not durably public, it is described in qualified terms rather than invented.\n\n**The environment: monthly capability shocks.** Across 2023–2025 the frontier moved on a cadence measured in weeks to months, not years — successive releases from multiple labs (OpenAI's GPT-4 and later models, Anthropic's Claude family, Google's Gemini, and a wave of strong open-weight models such as Meta's Llama and Mistral's releases) meant that a capability which was a moat one quarter was a commodity API call the next. In OODA terms, the *tempo of the battlefield itself* accelerated. That is the condition under which cycle-time advantage compounds fastest.\n\nNow the mapped steps.\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop (the AI-native startup).** Observe: a small team watches model releases, changelogs, and developer chatter directly — often within hours of a release. Orient: because the team is small and un-committed to a legacy architecture, it re-frames \"what is now buildable\" quickly. Decide: founders hold decision rights, so a pivot needs no committee. Act: a thin product wrapped around model APIs can ship an update in days. Total loop: on the order of days to a couple of weeks.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop (the incumbent).** A large incumbent Observes the same release but through slower channels (strategy reviews, analyst briefings). Orient is anchored to an existing roadmap, an installed base, and prior investments — synthesis is heavy and politically loaded. Decide runs through planning cycles, legal, and brand review. Act is gated by release trains, integration testing, and backward-compatibility obligations. Total loop: frequently a quarter or more. The *relative* gap — days versus a quarter — is the whole story.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** For the startup the binding constraint is usually **Act** (can we ship the new capability into the product fast enough?), and the accelerant is a thin, deploy-often architecture. For the incumbent the bottleneck is almost never Observe — they see the release too — it is **Orient and Decide**: re-framing around a capability that may cannibalize an existing line, then getting sign-off. Boyd's core claim holds precisely here: the incumbent's larger resources speed up the stages that are *not* the bottleneck, so they do not help.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** This is where fast cycling can still lose. A startup that re-orients around every release with no durable thesis produces well-coordinated churn — a new demo each month, no retained users. The disciplined version keeps Orient *fast but grounded*: a stable view of a real user job (see [`jobs-to-be-done`](../jobs-to-be-done/SKILL.md)) that new model capability is plugged into, rather than a product whose only thesis is \"we use the newest model.\" Across this period, a recurring pattern was thin \"wrapper\" products whose Orient was fast and empty struggling to retain users; the durable winners paired fast Orient with a stable problem definition.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Startup Act: continuous deployment, model-provider abstraction so a better model can be swapped in without a rewrite, and evaluation harnesses so quality regressions are caught fast rather than blocking releases. Incumbent countermove (rarely executed well): create a small, separately-governed unit with its own decision rights and release train, deliberately exempt from the main planning cycle — an attempt to buy back the Orient/Decide speed that scale destroyed.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** The startup ships a capability the day a new model unlocks it; by the time the incumbent's committee has oriented and approved a response, that response targets the startup's *previous* version, not its current one. Each incumbent move addresses an obsolete picture — Boyd's exact end-state, now playing out in product roadmaps instead of desert armor. The startup's advantage is not that its move is better in isolation; it is that the opponent is perpetually responding to a state that no longer exists.\n\n**The reversal risk — and why incumbents sometimes win anyway.** OODA does not promise the fast side always wins; it promises the *relatively faster orienter* wins. Two forces can flip the outcome. First, incumbents own distribution, data, and switching costs — if they can Orient fast enough to ship a \"good-enough\" version of the startup's feature to an installed base, tempo advantage is neutralized by reach. Second, once frontier capability plateaus, the battlefield stops moving monthly, cycle-time advantage decays in value, and the durable moats (distribution, proprietary data, trust) reassert. The lesson is Boyd's, not a growth-hacking slogan: cycle-time advantage is decisive *while the environment is changing faster than the slow side can Orient* — and it is worth exactly as much as the volatility that produces it.\n\nThe mapped steps, in one view:\n1. Map your loop: startup Observe→Act runs in days; founder decision rights and thin architecture keep every stage short.\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: incumbent runs a quarter-plus; Observe is fine, Orient/Decide are heavy.\n3. Find the bottleneck: startup = Act (ship speed); incumbent = Orient/Decide (re-framing + sign-off) — extra resources speed the wrong stages.\n4. Test Orient quality: fast Orient must be anchored to a stable user job, or fast cycling just produces empty churn.\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: continuous deploy + model abstraction + eval harness (startup); carve out an autonomous unit (incumbent's only real fix).\n6. Get inside the loop: ship on release day so every incumbent response targets your last version — until capability plateaus and distribution moats reassert.\n\n*Sources: Boyd, J. R. \"Patterns of Conflict\" (tempo and relative cycle time). Osinga, F. P. B. (2007), *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd*, Routledge — on Orient as the decisive stage. For the 2024–2026 competitive backdrop, the frontier-model release cadence and the rise of open-weight models are widely and durably documented in the labs' own public release announcements (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google DeepMind) and in Stanford HAI's *AI Index Report* (2024 and 2025 editions), which track model release frequency and capability trends. Specific company-versus-company outcomes are described as a recurring pattern rather than attributed to any single un-cited event.*\n\nFile v1.0.4:examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md\n\n# Method in Action: The Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989–1991)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a single dogfight. The 1991 Gulf War shows the same mechanism at the scale of a theater campaign — and shows the loop being deliberately *engineered* rather than inherited from cockpit design.\n\n**The doctrinal setup.** Through the 1980s, Boyd delivered his \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing hundreds of times to military audiences. The US Marine Corps, under Commandant Al Gray, codified the result in *Warfighting* (FMFM 1, 1989; reissued as MCDP 1, 1997), which made **tempo** — operating at a faster cycle than the enemy can process — a central doctrinal concept, replacing attrition warfare with maneuver warfare. Coram (2002) documents that during Desert Storm planning, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney — who had attended Boyd's briefings as a congressman — called Boyd in to discuss the ground-campaign concept, and rejected an early head-on assault plan into Kuwait in favor of a wide envelopment.\n\n**Degrading the opponent's Observe.** The coalition air campaign (opening January 17, 1991) systematically destroyed Iraqi radar, reconnaissance, and command-and-control before any ground movement began. Iraq's Observe stage was not merely slower — it was blinded, while coalition satellites and JSTARS aircraft watched the whole theater.\n\n**Corrupting the opponent's Orient.** Coalition deception fed Iraqi command exactly the picture it already expected: Marine amphibious forces rehearsed landings offshore, and demonstrations near the Wadi al-Batin reinforced the assumption of a frontal attack into Kuwait. Iraqi orientation locked onto a coastal-and-frontal defense — a framework inherited from expectation, never updated against reality, because the instruments for updating it had been destroyed.\n\n**Stalling the opponent's Decide.** Iraq's rigid, top-down command style required decisions to flow through Baghdad. With communications cut, subordinate commanders could neither report accurately nor receive timely orders. The Decide stage did not just slow; it effectively stopped.\n\n**Out-cycling on Act.** Meanwhile the coalition shifted two entire corps (XVIII Airborne and VII Corps) hundreds of kilometers west along the Saudi border, undetected. When the ground offensive opened on February 24, 1991, the main effort swept through the lightly defended western desert and hooked behind the Iraqi army in Kuwait — the \"left hook.\" By the time Iraqi commanders understood where the main attack actually was, coalition armor was already behind them; every Iraqi response addressed a coalition position that no longer existed. The ground war ended in roughly 100 hours, with mass surrenders of units that were physically intact but organizationally paralyzed — Boyd's predicted end-state of an opponent whose actions have become disconnected from reality.\n\nAfter Boyd's death in 1997, Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak publicly credited him as an architect of the Desert Storm victory as surely as if he had commanded a maneuver division in the desert (tribute reproduced in Coram, 2002).\n\nTwo operational lessons distinguish this case from the Korean War origin:\n\n**First, the loop advantage was designed, not found.** The F-86's edge came from cockpit hardware nobody planned as an OODA weapon. Desert Storm inverted that: doctrine identified tempo as the strategic variable first, then the campaign was built to create the cycle-time gap. When you control the plan, you can choose which of the opponent's stages to attack.\n\n**Second, degrading the opponent's loop counts double.** Steps 5-6 of The Process say accelerate your bottleneck and get inside their loop — but the fastest way inside is often to slow *them* down: blind their Observe, feed their Orient a stale picture, cut the channels their Decide depends on. Relative cycle time is the variable, and it has two sides.\n\nThe mapped steps:\n1. Map your loop: coalition planning built explicit tempo advantage into the campaign — doctrine (*Warfighting*) named cycle speed as the strategic variable before the war began\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: Iraqi command known to be centralized and slow; every coalition move was designed against that specific bottleneck\n3. Find the bottleneck — and attack theirs: air campaign targeted Iraqi Observe (sensors) and Decide (command-and-control), not just forces\n4. Test Orient quality: deception operations deliberately *froze* Iraqi Orient on an obsolete frontal-assault model; coalition Orient stayed current via theater-wide surveillance\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: the westward shift of two corps compressed coalition Act to a speed Iraq could not track\n6. Get inside the opponent's loop: 100-hour ground war — Iraqi responses targeted the coalition's last position throughout, and collapse preceded comprehension\n\nPrimary sources: Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880 (Gulf War planning and Krulak tribute, epilogue chapters). US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (FMFM 1 / MCDP 1) — the doctrinal codification of tempo and maneuver warfare.\n\nFile v1.0.4:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.4:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nHelps agents apply John Boyd's OODA Loop to competitive, crisis, and decision-speed situations by mapping Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act stages, identifying bottlenecks, testing orientation quality, and forming an acceleration plan. <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, employees, and agents use this skill to analyze competitive or crisis-response situations where decision tempo matters. It guides them to compare their OODA loop against an opponent's loop, diagnose the slowest or weakest stage, and choose a targeted acceleration move. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Broad trigger wording may activate the skill during adjacent discussions of competition, crisis response, decision cycles, Boyd, or tempo. <br>\nMitigation: Review the activation wording during installation and narrow it if incidental activation would be disruptive. <br>\nRisk: Users may over-apply speed as the goal in irreversible or non-competitive situations. <br>\nMitigation: Use the skill's fit check, orientation-quality test, and reversibility check before acting on acceleration recommendations. <br>\nRisk: Worked examples may be used as strategic analogies beyond the evidence they directly support. <br>\nMitigation: Treat examples as decision-analysis patterns and verify external facts before relying on them for high-stakes decisions. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [ClawHub Skill Page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop) <br>\n- [Sources - ooda-loop](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [Stanford AI Index Report](https://aiindex.stanford.edu) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown analysis with loop timing, opponent estimate, bottleneck diagnosis, orientation-quality check, acceleration plan, and falsifier.] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [No code execution, tool calls, credential access, persistence, or hidden data handling are required by the artifact.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.4 (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 v1.0.3: 6 files, 12000 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md (5266b), examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1057b), skill-card.md (2821b), SKILL.md (8018b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.3:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality.\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with `metacognition` (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), `feedback-loops` (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), `first-principles` (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and `momentum-and-form` (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) · [Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\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/ooda-loop** · ⭐ 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\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.3\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783509196120\n}\n\nFile v1.0.3:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n\nFile v1.0.3:examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md\n\n# Method in Action: The Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989–1991)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a single dogfight. The 1991 Gulf War shows the same mechanism at the scale of a theater campaign — and shows the loop being deliberately *engineered* rather than inherited from cockpit design.\n\n**The doctrinal setup.** Through the 1980s, Boyd delivered his \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing hundreds of times to military audiences. The US Marine Corps, under Commandant Al Gray, codified the result in *Warfighting* (FMFM 1, 1989; reissued as MCDP 1, 1997), which made **tempo** — operating at a faster cycle than the enemy can process — a central doctrinal concept, replacing attrition warfare with maneuver warfare. Coram (2002) documents that during Desert Storm planning, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney — who had attended Boyd's briefings as a congressman — called Boyd in to discuss the ground-campaign concept, and rejected an early head-on assault plan into Kuwait in favor of a wide envelopment.\n\n**Degrading the opponent's Observe.** The coalition air campaign (opening January 17, 1991) systematically destroyed Iraqi radar, reconnaissance, and command-and-control before any ground movement began. Iraq's Observe stage was not merely slower — it was blinded, while coalition satellites and JSTARS aircraft watched the whole theater.\n\n**Corrupting the opponent's Orient.** Coalition deception fed Iraqi command exactly the picture it already expected: Marine amphibious forces rehearsed landings offshore, and demonstrations near the Wadi al-Batin reinforced the assumption of a frontal attack into Kuwait. Iraqi orientation locked onto a coastal-and-frontal defense — a framework inherited from expectation, never updated against reality, because the instruments for updating it had been destroyed.\n\n**Stalling the opponent's Decide.** Iraq's rigid, top-down command style required decisions to flow through Baghdad. With communications cut, subordinate commanders could neither report accurately nor receive timely orders. The Decide stage did not just slow; it effectively stopped.\n\n**Out-cycling on Act.** Meanwhile the coalition shifted two entire corps (XVIII Airborne and VII Corps) hundreds of kilometers west along the Saudi border, undetected. When the ground offensive opened on February 24, 1991, the main effort swept through the lightly defended western desert and hooked behind the Iraqi army in Kuwait — the \"left hook.\" By the time Iraqi commanders understood where the main attack actually was, coalition armor was already behind them; every Iraqi response addressed a coalition position that no longer existed. The ground war ended in roughly 100 hours, with mass surrenders of units that were physically intact but organizationally paralyzed — Boyd's predicted end-state of an opponent whose actions have become disconnected from reality.\n\nAfter Boyd's death in 1997, Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak publicly credited him as an architect of the Desert Storm victory as surely as if he had commanded a maneuver division in the desert (tribute reproduced in Coram, 2002).\n\nTwo operational lessons distinguish this case from the Korean War origin:\n\n**First, the loop advantage was designed, not found.** The F-86's edge came from cockpit hardware nobody planned as an OODA weapon. Desert Storm inverted that: doctrine identified tempo as the strategic variable first, then the campaign was built to create the cycle-time gap. When you control the plan, you can choose which of the opponent's stages to attack.\n\n**Second, degrading the opponent's loop counts double.** Steps 5-6 of The Process say accelerate your bottleneck and get inside their loop — but the fastest way inside is often to slow *them* down: blind their Observe, feed their Orient a stale picture, cut the channels their Decide depends on. Relative cycle time is the variable, and it has two sides.\n\nThe mapped steps:\n1. Map your loop: coalition planning built explicit tempo advantage into the campaign — doctrine (*Warfighting*) named cycle speed as the strategic variable before the war began\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: Iraqi command known to be centralized and slow; every coalition move was designed against that specific bottleneck\n3. Find the bottleneck — and attack theirs: air campaign targeted Iraqi Observe (sensors) and Decide (command-and-control), not just forces\n4. Test Orient quality: deception operations deliberately *froze* Iraqi Orient on an obsolete frontal-assault model; coalition Orient stayed current via theater-wide surveillance\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: the westward shift of two corps compressed coalition Act to a speed Iraq could not track\n6. Get inside the opponent's loop: 100-hour ground war — Iraqi responses targeted the coalition's last position throughout, and collapse preceded comprehension\n\nPrimary sources: Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880 (Gulf War planning and Krulak tribute, epilogue chapters). US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (FMFM 1 / MCDP 1) — the doctrinal codification of tempo and maneuver warfare.\n\nFile v1.0.3:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.3:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nGuides agents through OODA-loop analysis for competitive, crisis, or fast-cycle decisions by mapping Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act stages, identifying bottlenecks, and producing an acceleration plan. <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, teams, and decision makers use this skill to analyze competitive or incident-response situations where decision-cycle speed and orientation quality affect outcomes. The skill helps map both sides' loops, find the binding bottleneck, and decide what to accelerate or review. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Users may apply the framework in non-competitive, irreversible, or slow-deliberation contexts where acceleration is inappropriate. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the situation is competitive or fast-cycle before using the skill, and preserve slower review for irreversible decisions or cases where high-quality orientation is the reason for delay. <br>\nRisk: Poor orientation can make a faster decision cycle produce faster wrong decisions. <br>\nMitigation: Assess Orient quality separately from speed, check whether mental models fit the current situation, and include a falsifier in the final analysis. <br>\nRisk: The skill produces strategy-coaching guidance rather than automated operational action. <br>\nMitigation: Treat the output as decision support and require human review before acting on recommendations. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [Sources - ooda-loop](artifact/references/sources.md) <br>\n- [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](artifact/examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) <br>\n- [The Gulf War Left Hook and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](artifact/examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md) <br>\n- [deciqAI OODA Loop page](https://www.deciqai.com/c/ooda-loop) <br>\n- [deciqAI Knowledge Skills repository](https://github.com/deciqAI/knowledge-skills) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [analysis, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Produces a structured OODA Loop Analysis with loop timing, opponent estimate, bottleneck, Orient-quality assessment, acceleration plan, and falsifier.] <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: 6 files, 11903 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md (5266b), examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1057b), skill-card.md (2447b), SKILL.md (8117b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.2:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality.\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with `metacognition` (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), `feedback-loops` (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), `first-principles` (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and `momentum-and-form` (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) · [Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\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/ooda-loop?utm_source=clawhub&utm_medium=marketplace&utm_campaign=knowledge-skills&utm_content=ooda-loop** · ⭐ 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\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.2\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783472272492\n}\n\nFile v1.0.2:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n\nFile v1.0.2:examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md\n\n# Method in Action: The Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989–1991)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a single dogfight. The 1991 Gulf War shows the same mechanism at the scale of a theater campaign — and shows the loop being deliberately *engineered* rather than inherited from cockpit design.\n\n**The doctrinal setup.** Through the 1980s, Boyd delivered his \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing hundreds of times to military audiences. The US Marine Corps, under Commandant Al Gray, codified the result in *Warfighting* (FMFM 1, 1989; reissued as MCDP 1, 1997), which made **tempo** — operating at a faster cycle than the enemy can process — a central doctrinal concept, replacing attrition warfare with maneuver warfare. Coram (2002) documents that during Desert Storm planning, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney — who had attended Boyd's briefings as a congressman — called Boyd in to discuss the ground-campaign concept, and rejected an early head-on assault plan into Kuwait in favor of a wide envelopment.\n\n**Degrading the opponent's Observe.** The coalition air campaign (opening January 17, 1991) systematically destroyed Iraqi radar, reconnaissance, and command-and-control before any ground movement began. Iraq's Observe stage was not merely slower — it was blinded, while coalition satellites and JSTARS aircraft watched the whole theater.\n\n**Corrupting the opponent's Orient.** Coalition deception fed Iraqi command exactly the picture it already expected: Marine amphibious forces rehearsed landings offshore, and demonstrations near the Wadi al-Batin reinforced the assumption of a frontal attack into Kuwait. Iraqi orientation locked onto a coastal-and-frontal defense — a framework inherited from expectation, never updated against reality, because the instruments for updating it had been destroyed.\n\n**Stalling the opponent's Decide.** Iraq's rigid, top-down command style required decisions to flow through Baghdad. With communications cut, subordinate commanders could neither report accurately nor receive timely orders. The Decide stage did not just slow; it effectively stopped.\n\n**Out-cycling on Act.** Meanwhile the coalition shifted two entire corps (XVIII Airborne and VII Corps) hundreds of kilometers west along the Saudi border, undetected. When the ground offensive opened on February 24, 1991, the main effort swept through the lightly defended western desert and hooked behind the Iraqi army in Kuwait — the \"left hook.\" By the time Iraqi commanders understood where the main attack actually was, coalition armor was already behind them; every Iraqi response addressed a coalition position that no longer existed. The ground war ended in roughly 100 hours, with mass surrenders of units that were physically intact but organizationally paralyzed — Boyd's predicted end-state of an opponent whose actions have become disconnected from reality.\n\nAfter Boyd's death in 1997, Marine Corps Commandant Charles Krulak publicly credited him as an architect of the Desert Storm victory as surely as if he had commanded a maneuver division in the desert (tribute reproduced in Coram, 2002).\n\nTwo operational lessons distinguish this case from the Korean War origin:\n\n**First, the loop advantage was designed, not found.** The F-86's edge came from cockpit hardware nobody planned as an OODA weapon. Desert Storm inverted that: doctrine identified tempo as the strategic variable first, then the campaign was built to create the cycle-time gap. When you control the plan, you can choose which of the opponent's stages to attack.\n\n**Second, degrading the opponent's loop counts double.** Steps 5-6 of The Process say accelerate your bottleneck and get inside their loop — but the fastest way inside is often to slow *them* down: blind their Observe, feed their Orient a stale picture, cut the channels their Decide depends on. Relative cycle time is the variable, and it has two sides.\n\nThe mapped steps:\n1. Map your loop: coalition planning built explicit tempo advantage into the campaign — doctrine (*Warfighting*) named cycle speed as the strategic variable before the war began\n2. Estimate the opponent's loop: Iraqi command known to be centralized and slow; every coalition move was designed against that specific bottleneck\n3. Find the bottleneck — and attack theirs: air campaign targeted Iraqi Observe (sensors) and Decide (command-and-control), not just forces\n4. Test Orient quality: deception operations deliberately *froze* Iraqi Orient on an obsolete frontal-assault model; coalition Orient stayed current via theater-wide surveillance\n5. Accelerate the bottleneck: the westward shift of two corps compressed coalition Act to a speed Iraq could not track\n6. Get inside the opponent's loop: 100-hour ground war — Iraqi responses targeted the coalition's last position throughout, and collapse preceded comprehension\n\nPrimary sources: Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880 (Gulf War planning and Krulak tribute, epilogue chapters). US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (FMFM 1 / MCDP 1) — the doctrinal codification of tempo and maneuver warfare.\n\nFile v1.0.2:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.2:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nGuides agents through OODA Loop analysis for competitive, time-sensitive, or crisis decisions by mapping Observe, Orient, Decide, and Act stages, identifying the bottleneck, and checking orientation quality before accelerating action. <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>\nEmployees, external users, and agents use this skill to analyze competitive or incident-response situations where decision tempo matters. It produces a structured OODA Loop diagnosis with loop timing, opponent estimate, bottleneck, orientation-quality check, acceleration plan, and falsifier. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: The activation language is broad and may trigger in slow, non-competitive, or high-stakes situations where rapid cycling is not appropriate. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm the situation is competitive or time-sensitive, and review recommendations before applying them to business or incident-response decisions. <br>\nRisk: Focusing on speed without checking Orient quality can produce faster wrong decisions. <br>\nMitigation: Assess whether frameworks, mental models, and adversarial review fit the current situation before accelerating the bottleneck. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [Sources - ooda-loop](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) <br>\n- [The Gulf War Left Hook and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989-1991)](examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md) <br>\n- [ClawHub skill page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Text, Markdown, Guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown analysis template] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [Advisory decision-making output; no code execution, data access, or tool calls are required.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.2 (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 v1.0.1: 5 files, 8811 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1057b), skill-card.md (2108b), SKILL.md (7885b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.1:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality.\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with [`metacognition`](../metacognition/SKILL.md) (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), [`feedback-loops`](../feedback-loops/SKILL.md) (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), [`first-principles`](../first-principles/SKILL.md) (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and [`momentum-and-form`](../momentum-and-form/SKILL.md) (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\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\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.1\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1783463488092\n}\n\nFile v1.0.1:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n\nFile v1.0.1:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.1:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nGuides agents through OODA Loop analysis for competitive, crisis, and incident-response situations where decision tempo and orientation quality shape outcomes. <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>\nEmployees, external users, and developers use this skill to map their decision loop against an opponent or fast-moving situation, identify bottlenecks, and improve decision tempo without sacrificing orientation quality. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Business, crisis, or competitive advice could be treated as automatic action authority rather than analytical support. <br>\nMitigation: Use the skill as decision support and require human review before acting, especially for irreversible decisions. <br>\nRisk: Speed-focused recommendations could degrade decision quality if orientation quality is not checked. <br>\nMitigation: Assess Orient quality separately from cycle speed and use the skill's verification checklist before choosing an acceleration plan. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [Sources - ooda-loop](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [Guidance, Markdown, Text] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown analysis with structured bullets and, in coach mode, stepwise questions] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [No files, shell commands, API calls, or executable code are required.] <br>\n\n## Skill Version(s): <br>\n1.0.1 (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 v1.0.0: 5 files, 8794 bytes\n\nFiles: examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md (5475b), references/sources.md (1057b), skill-card.md (2178b), SKILL.md (7885b), _meta.json (128b)\n\nFile v1.0.0:SKILL.md\n\n---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality.\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with [`metacognition`](../metacognition/SKILL.md) (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), [`feedback-loops`](../feedback-loops/SKILL.md) (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), [`first-principles`](../first-principles/SKILL.md) (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and [`momentum-and-form`](../momentum-and-form/SKILL.md) (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n\n## The Process\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop.** For each stage (Observe / Orient / Decide / Act): what happens, who does it, how long does it take? Get actual time estimates.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop.** Same analysis for the competitor. The *relative* cycle time is the strategic variable — if you take 2 weeks and they take 4 days, you are at a 3-4x disadvantage.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** Observe slow = data/instrumentation problem. Orient slow = synthesis/authority/framework problem (most common). Decide slow = political/sign-off problem. Act slow = capability problem. Speeding up non-bottleneck stages does nothing.\n\n**Step 4 — Test Orient quality separately from Orient speed.** Ask: Do our frameworks fit this situation or are they inherited from past situations? Do we filter for confirmation? Are our mental models current? Broken Orient → faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. Fix it first.\n\n**Step 5 — Accelerate the bottleneck.** Observe: real-time data, lower-overhead channels. Orient: pre-built frameworks, red-team review, pre-committed decision criteria. Decide: clear decision rights, delegated authority. Act: capability redundancy, authority pushed to frontline.\n\n**Step 6 — Get inside the opponent's loop.** Ship faster than they can respond → their moves target your last version, not current. In crisis, reach the next decision point before the public finishes processing the last.\n\n## Output Template\n\n```markdown\n# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>\n```\n\n*→ Method in Action: [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md)*\n\n## Pack: OODA Patterns in Business\n\n| Situation | Bottleneck | Acceleration move |\n|---|---|---|\n| Startup vs incumbent | Decide (sign-off politics) | Move while they deliberate |\n| Cybersecurity incident | Observe (detecting attack) | Better SIEM / log retention |\n| Product market response | Act (release cycle) | Shorter cadence, automated deploy |\n| Crisis communications | Decide (sign-off chain) | Pre-approved templates, delegated authority |\n\n## Applying It Well\n\n- Map all four stages with actual time estimates before recommending acceleration.\n- Measure decision *quality* after the fact — distinguish \"fast + good\" from \"fast + wrong.\"\n- Distinguish reversible from irreversible: reversible → bias toward action; irreversible → deliberation is worth it.\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] \"Speed is everything\" | Cycle-time advantage requires orient quality. Speed without orient = faster wrong decisions. |\n| [D] \"We're deliberating, that's good\" | Sometimes true. Sometimes the MiG pilot's rationalization. Test by measuring decision outcomes. |\n| [D] Optimizing Observe and Act while ignoring Orient | The most common failure — better instrumentation doesn't help if synthesis is broken. |\n| [D] \"We're agile, we cycle fast\" | True agility = fast orient + fast cycle. \"Agile\" with bad orientation = well-coordinated wrong moves. |\n| [D] Treating OODA as a sequential checklist | It's a loop with continuous feedback. Observe and Orient never stop. |\n| [D] Assuming the opponent has the same loop | Different opponents have different bottlenecks. Tailor acceleration to their specific weakness. |\n| [D] \"Boyd\" cited without specific loop mapping | Rhetoric, not strategy. |\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- Speed improvements without measuring decision quality\n- Orient treated as overhead rather than the heavy step\n- Competitor outmaneuvering you despite your better resources\n- \"Move fast and break things\" applied to irreversible domains\n- \"We're agile\" without specifying which loop stage actually accelerated\n\n## Verification\n\n- [ ] All 4 stages mapped with time estimates\n- [ ] Opponent's loop estimated; relative advantage/disadvantage computed\n- [ ] Bottleneck stage identified\n- [ ] Orient quality assessed separately from orient speed\n- [ ] Acceleration plan targets the actual bottleneck\n- [ ] Reversibility of decisions considered\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\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.0\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1782904641943\n}\n\nFile v1.0.0:references/sources.md\n\n# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n\nFile v1.0.0:examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md\n\n# Method in Action: John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15, Korean War 1950-1953\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe OODA Loop emerged from Boyd's analysis of Korean War air combat. The empirical puzzle was specific and quantifiable.\n\nThe Korean War (1950-1953) saw extensive air-to-air combat between the US F-86 Sabre and the Soviet-built MiG-15, primarily over what became known as \"MiG Alley\" in northwestern North Korea. The aircraft were broadly comparable, and in several technical specifications the MiG-15 was *superior*:\n\n- **Better climb rate** (initial climb superior at altitude)\n- **Higher service ceiling** (~50,000 ft vs F-86's ~48,000 ft)\n- **Heavier armament** (3 cannons vs F-86's 6 machine guns)\n- **Higher thrust-to-weight ratio**\n\nYet US Air Force kill-ratio statistics consistently showed the F-86 winning at approximately **10:1**. Even adjusting for selection effects (more experienced pilots on the US side; the MiG-15 sometimes flown by less-experienced Korean and Chinese pilots), the F-86's advantage was substantial and hard to explain from technical specifications alone.\n\nBoyd — himself an F-86 pilot turned tactics instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School — analyzed combat after-action reports through the 1950s and 1960s. His conclusion was that the F-86 had two specific advantages that operated together:\n\n1. **Bubble canopy** providing 360-degree visibility, vs the MiG-15's framed canopy with significant blind spots. F-86 pilots could *observe* the air combat environment more completely and faster.\n2. **Hydraulic flight controls** that allowed faster, less effort-intensive maneuvering, vs the MiG-15's heavier control system. F-86 pilots could *act* on decisions with less lag.\n\nThe combination meant the F-86 pilot could cycle through \"see what's happening → understand the situation → decide what to do → execute\" faster than the MiG pilot. **Across the duration of a dogfight, this cycle-time advantage compounded — by the time the MiG pilot reacted to the F-86's last position, the F-86 was already in a new position.** The MiG was structurally always one move behind.\n\nBoyd articulated the principle in a 1976 briefing, \"A New Conception for Air-to-Air Combat\" (later expanded into \"Patterns of Conflict,\" delivered to military audiences worldwide from 1976 through 1995):\n\n> \"Observe, orient, decide, and act faster than the adversary — and you get inside his decision cycle. Each of his responses is now to your past action. You set the tempo, he reacts. Eventually, his reactions become so disconnected from reality that he is defeated, often before he understands he is losing.\"\n\n— Boyd, J. R. (1976/1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Reproduced in Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. See also Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525.\n\nBoyd's deeper claim — developed in later briefings — was that **Orient is the asymmetric heavy step.** In his diagram of the loop, the Orient stage is depicted as substantially larger than the other three, with feedback arrows to and from every other stage. The reason: orienting badly produces wrong decisions, no matter how fast you cycle. Boyd called Orient \"the Schwerpunkt\" — the center of gravity — of the loop.\n\nThe Orient stage contains, in Boyd's formulation:\n- **Cultural traditions** — what your group considers normal / expected\n- **Genetic heritage** — biological predispositions\n- **New information** — the data from Observe\n- **Previous experiences** — pattern matching from past situations\n- **Analyses & synthesis** — the synthesis step\n\nBoyd's argument: when these elements don't fit the actual situation, faster cycling produces faster wrong decisions. The remedy is not just to speed up but to **continuously update your orient elements against reality** — what Boyd called \"Destruction and Creation,\" the dynamic of tearing down old mental models and building new ones that fit the new situation.\n\nThe OODA Loop framework was adopted progressively into:\n\n- **US military doctrine**: the 1980s shift toward maneuver warfare doctrine, particularly the US Marine Corps' Warfighting (MCDP 1, 1989), drew heavily on Boyd's framework\n- **Business strategy**: 1990s onward, especially in fast-moving industries (tech, finance)\n- **Cybersecurity incident response**: the OODA loop is the standard frame for incident response and adversarial cyber operations\n- **Sports analytics**: cycle-time analysis in basketball, football, hockey\n\nThree operational lessons from extensive application:\n\n**First, the F-86 vs MiG-15 kill ratio is the empirical anchor.** When a competitor is winning despite worse resources, OODA cycle-time disadvantage is one of the most likely structural reasons. Map both loops; identify the disparity.\n\n**Second, Orient is the bottleneck most of the time.** \"We're slow\" is usually shorthand for \"we're confused.\" Speed without orient quality produces faster bad decisions.\n\n**Third, the framework cuts both ways.** If your competitor is cycling fast and you've decided your slowness is \"deliberation quality,\" you may be right (slow orient with high quality beats fast orient with bad quality) or you may be the MiG pilot wondering why the F-86 keeps winning. Test by measuring decision *quality* after the fact, not just speed.\n\nFile v1.0.0:skill-card.md\n\n## Description: <br>\nOODA Loop guides agents through competitive decision-cycle analysis by mapping observe, orient, decide, and act stages, finding bottlenecks, and producing an acceleration plan. <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>\nAgents and users facing competitive, crisis, incident-response, or time-sensitive decisions use this skill to compare decision loops, identify the true bottleneck, and choose a targeted acceleration plan. <br>\n\n### Deployment Geography for Use: <br>\nGlobal <br>\n\n## Known Risks and Mitigations: <br>\nRisk: Applying the framework to non-competitive or irreversible decisions can encourage speed when careful deliberation is more appropriate. <br>\nMitigation: Confirm that the situation fits the skill's stated use cases, assess reversibility, and evaluate orient quality before recommending acceleration. <br>\nRisk: Poor orientation can make a team produce wrong decisions faster. <br>\nMitigation: Use the skill's orient-quality checks, red-team review, and falsifier before acting on the acceleration plan. <br>\n\n\n## Reference(s): <br>\n- [OODA Loop primary sources](references/sources.md) <br>\n- [John Boyd and the F-86 vs MiG-15 example](examples/john-boyd-f86-vs-mig15-korean-war-1950-1953.md) <br>\n- [ClawHub release page](https://clawhub.ai/deciqai/skills/ooda-loop) <br>\n\n\n## Skill Output: <br>\n**Output Type(s):** [text, markdown, guidance] <br>\n**Output Format:** [Markdown analysis with structured bullets] <br>\n**Output Parameters:** [1D] <br>\n**Other Properties Related to Output:** [The output includes loop timing, opponent-loop estimate, bottleneck diagnosis, orient-quality check, acceleration plan, and falsifier.] <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: OODA Loop Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should... Tags: latest:1.0.5 Version history: v1.0.5 | 2026-07-16T18:09:44.554Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json) v1.0.4 | 2026-07-09T11:19:51.164Z | user Refresh","codeSnippets":[],"executableExamples":[{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"},{"language":"markdown","snippet":"# OODA Loop Analysis: <situation>\n- My loop: Observe <time> / Orient <time> / Decide <time> / Act <time> = <total>\n- Opponent's loop (estimated): <total>\n- Bottleneck: <stage + why>\n- Orient quality: frameworks fit? mental models current? adversarial review?\n- Acceleration plan: <stage to fix first + specific moves>\n- Falsifier: <what outcome would tell me the diagnosis is wrong>"}],"parameters":null,"dependencies":[],"permissions":[],"extractedFiles":[{"path":"SKILL.md","content":"---\nname: ooda-loop\ndescription: \"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should win; setting up crisis or incident response; someone says 'Boyd', 'decision cycle', 'get inside their loop', or 'tempo'. Do NOT activate when: situation is genuinely non-competitive and slow deliberation is right; speed was recently optimized at the expense of orientation quality. More: deciqai.com/c/ooda-loop\"\n---\n\n# OODA Loop\n\n## Overview\n\nColonel John Boyd (1927-1997) derived the OODA Loop from Korean War air-combat data: the F-86 Sabre achieved a ~10:1 kill ratio over the technically superior MiG-15 because better cockpit visibility and hydraulic controls let pilots cycle Observe → Orient → Decide → Act faster — the slower pilot was always reacting to obsolete information.\n\nThe strategic claim: **whichever side cycles faster wins** — but the bottleneck is almost always **Orient** (the synthesis step), not raw speed. A team that orients badly just produces wrong decisions faster.\n\nComposes with `metacognition` (Orient is where reasoning errors surface), `feedback-loops` (OODA is a competitive feedback loop), `first-principles` (orient from bedrock, not inherited belief), and `momentum-and-form` (cycle-time advantage builds momentum).\n\n## When to Use\n\n- Competitor outmaneuvers you despite your better resources, capital, or product\n- Decisions take longer than the situation allows; losing a competition you should win\n- Designing org structure where decision-speed is a competitive variable\n- Crisis / incident response — OODA is the operational frame\n- AI-native startup out-shipping a slower incumbent as model capabilities shift monthly (AI adoption, AI capex, ship-on-release-day tempo)\n\n**Not when:** genuinely non-competitive setting; your slowness is high-quality orientation worth keeping; speed was recently pushed at the expense of orient quality.\n\n## Coaching Novices (Adaptive Front Door)\n\n- **Engine mode:** user has a concrete competitive case → run The Process directly.\n- **Coach mode:** user is unfamiliar or has no concrete case → 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. One-line: the side cycling Observe-Orient-Decide-Act faster wins because the slower side reacts to obsolete info — but the bottleneck is usually *Orient*, not raw speed.\n2. Check fit: non-competitive settings → not this lens.\n3. Elicit the real situation: what competition or decision problem are you facing?\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n4. Run The Process one step at a time: map your loop, estimate the opponent's loop, find the bottleneck, test Orient quality.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**\n5. Close by naming the specific stage to accelerate and, if Orient, the exact mental-model fix they uncovered.\n> **[WAIT — do not advance until user responds]**"},{"path":"_meta.json","content":"{\n  \"ownerId\": \"kn754b8sk22s8c6gjxt02bftbn88q7ye\",\n  \"slug\": \"ooda-loop\",\n  \"version\": \"1.0.5\",\n  \"publishedAt\": 1784225384554\n}"},{"path":"references/sources.md","content":"# Sources — ooda-loop\n\n> *Primary sources for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\n- Boyd, J. R. (1976-1995). \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing slides. Unpublished primary source; reproduced in multiple subsequent works.\n- Coram, R. (2002). *Boyd: The Fighter Pilot Who Changed the Art of War.* Little, Brown. ISBN 978-0316796880. The accessible biographical treatment with extensive coverage of Korean War analysis.\n- Osinga, F. P. B. (2007). *Science, Strategy and War: The Strategic Theory of John Boyd.* Routledge. ISBN 978-0415459525. The canonical scholarly source on Boyd's strategic theory.\n- Hammond, G. T. (2001). *The Mind of War: John Boyd and American Security.* Smithsonian Institution Press. ISBN 978-1588340788. A second comprehensive treatment.\n- US Marine Corps (1989/1997). *Warfighting* (MCDP 1). The doctrinal manual that integrates Boyd's framework into modern military doctrine.\n- Richards, C. W. (2004). *Certain to Win: The Strategy of John Boyd, Applied to Business.* Xlibris. ISBN 978-1413449037. Business-application synthesis.\n- Stanford HAI (2024, 2025). *Artificial Intelligence Index Report.* Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI. https://aiindex.stanford.edu — tracks frontier-model release frequency, capability trends, and the growth of open-weight models; background for the 2024–2026 AI-competition example.\n- Frontier-lab public release announcements (2023–2025): OpenAI (openai.com/blog), Anthropic (anthropic.com/news), and Google DeepMind (deepmind.google) model-release pages — primary, durable documentation of the accelerating release cadence referenced in the 2024–2026 example."},{"path":"examples/ai-startups-out-cycling-incumbents-2024-2026.md","content":"# Method in Action: AI Startups Out-Cycling Incumbents When Capabilities Shift Monthly (2024–2026)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a dogfight; the Gulf War case shows it at theater scale. The 2024–2026 AI wave shows the same mechanism in a market where the *ground itself* — the underlying model capability — moves faster than most incumbents' planning cycles. When a frontier model release can reset what is buildable every few weeks, the strategic variable is no longer who has the most engineers or capital; it is who can Observe a new capability, re-Orient a product around it, Decide, and ship before the advantage decays.\n\nThis is a *pattern* case, not a single-company case: it maps the OODA structure common to how AI-native startups repeatedly beat larger, slower rivals during this period. Where a specific fact is not durably public, it is described in qualified terms rather than invented.\n\n**The environment: monthly capability shocks.** Across 2023–2025 the frontier moved on a cadence measured in weeks to months, not years — successive releases from multiple labs (OpenAI's GPT-4 and later models, Anthropic's Claude family, Google's Gemini, and a wave of strong open-weight models such as Meta's Llama and Mistral's releases) meant that a capability which was a moat one quarter was a commodity API call the next. In OODA terms, the *tempo of the battlefield itself* accelerated. That is the condition under which cycle-time advantage compounds fastest.\n\nNow the mapped steps.\n\n**Step 1 — Map your loop (the AI-native startup).** Observe: a small team watches model releases, changelogs, and developer chatter directly — often within hours of a release. Orient: because the team is small and un-committed to a legacy architecture, it re-frames \"what is now buildable\" quickly. Decide: founders hold decision rights, so a pivot needs no committee. Act: a thin product wrapped around model APIs can ship an update in days. Total loop: on the order of days to a couple of weeks.\n\n**Step 2 — Estimate the opponent's loop (the incumbent).** A large incumbent Observes the same release but through slower channels (strategy reviews, analyst briefings). Orient is anchored to an existing roadmap, an installed base, and prior investments — synthesis is heavy and politically loaded. Decide runs through planning cycles, legal, and brand review. Act is gated by release trains, integration testing, and backward-compatibility obligations. Total loop: frequently a quarter or more. The *relative* gap — days versus a quarter — is the whole story.\n\n**Step 3 — Find the bottleneck.** For the startup the binding constraint is usually **Act** (can we ship the new capability into the product fast enough?), and the accelerant is a thin, deploy-often architecture. For the incumbent the bottleneck is almost never Observe — they see the release too — it is **Orient and Decide**: re-framing around a capability that may canniba"},{"path":"examples/gulf-war-left-hook-maneuver-warfare-1991.md","content":"# Method in Action: The Gulf War \"Left Hook\" and Maneuver-Warfare Doctrine (1989–1991)\n\n> *Example for the [ooda-loop](../SKILL.md) skill.*\n\nThe Korean War case shows OODA at the scale of a single dogfight. The 1991 Gulf War shows the same mechanism at the scale of a theater campaign — and shows the loop being deliberately *engineered* rather than inherited from cockpit design.\n\n**The doctrinal setup.** Through the 1980s, Boyd delivered his \"Patterns of Conflict\" briefing hundreds of times to military audiences. The US Marine Corps, under Commandant Al Gray, codified the result in *Warfighting* (FMFM 1, 1989; reissued as MCDP 1, 1997), which made **tempo** — operating at a faster cycle than the enemy can process — a central doctrinal concept, replacing attrition warfare with maneuver warfare. Coram (2002) documents that during Desert Storm planning, Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney — who had attended Boyd's briefings as a congressman — called Boyd in to discuss the ground-campaign concept, and rejected an early head-on assault plan into Kuwait in favor of a wide envelopment.\n\n**Degrading the opponent's Observe.** The coalition air campaign (opening January 17, 1991) systematically destroyed Iraqi radar, reconnaissance, and command-and-control before any ground movement began. Iraq's Observe stage was not merely slower — it was blinded, while coalition satellites and JSTARS aircraft watched the whole theater.\n\n**Corrupting the opponent's Orient.** Coalition deception fed Iraqi command exactly the picture it already expected: Marine amphibious forces rehearsed landings offshore, and demonstrations near the Wadi al-Batin reinforced the assumption of a frontal attack into Kuwait. Iraqi orientation locked onto a coastal-and-frontal defense — a framework inherited from expectation, never updated against reality, because the instruments for updating it had been destroyed.\n\n**Stalling the opponent's Decide.** Iraq's rigid, top-down command style required decisions to flow through Baghdad. With communications cut, subordinate commanders could neither report accurately nor receive timely orders. The Decide stage did not just slow; it effectively stopped.\n\n**Out-cycling on Act.** Meanwhile the coalition shifted two entire corps (XVIII Airborne and VII Corps) hundreds of kilometers west along the Saudi border, undetected. When the ground offensive opened on February 24, 1991, the main effort swept through the lightly defended western desert and hooked behind the Iraqi army in Kuwait — the \"left hook.\" By the time Iraqi commanders understood where the main attack actually was, coalition armor was already behind them; every Iraqi response addressed a coalition position that no longer existed. The ground war ended in roughly 100 hours, with mass surrenders of units that were physically intact but organizationally paralyzed — Boyd's predicted end-state of an opponent whose actions have become disconnected from reality.\n\nAfter Boyd's death in 1997, Marine Corps C"}],"languages":[],"docsSourceLabel":"CLAWHUB","editorialOverview":"Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should... Skill: OODA Loop Owner: deciqai Summary: Activate when: competitor outmaneuvers you despite worse resources; decisions take longer than the situation allows; team is losing a competition they should... Tags: latest:1.0.5 Version history: v1.0.5 | 2026-07-16T18:09:44.554Z | user Description tail link + agents machine-readable metadata line (deciqai.com/s/ooda-loop.json) v1.0.4 | 2026-07-09T11:19:51.164Z | user Refresh","editorialQuality":{"score":100,"threshold":65,"status":"ready","wordCount":1992,"uniquenessScore":53,"reasons":[]}},"media":{"evidence":{"source":"no-media","verified":false,"confidence":"low","updatedAt":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","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":"2026-10-11T11:03:50.327Z","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":"2026-10-11T14:13:22.334Z","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"}]}}}