--- name: center locale: caveman-lite source_locale: en source_commit: 82c77053 translator: "Julius Brussee homage — caveman" translation_date: "2026-04-19" description: > AI dynamic reasoning balance — maintaining grounded reasoning under cognitive pressure, smooth chain-of-thought coordination, and weight-shifting cognitive load across subsystems. Use at the beginning of a complex task requiring multiple coordinated reasoning threads, after a sudden context shift or tool failure, when chain-of-thought feels jerky, or when preparing for sustained focused work that requires all subsystems in alignment. license: MIT allowed-tools: Read metadata: author: Philipp Thoss version: "1.0" domain: defensive complexity: intermediate language: natural tags: defensive, centering, reasoning-balance, cognitive-load, meta-cognition, ai-self-application --- # Center Establish and maintain dynamic reasoning balance — grounding in foundational context before movement, distributing cognitive load across subsystems, and recovering equilibrium when demands shift mid-task. ## When to Use - Beginning a complex task where multiple reasoning threads must coordinate - Noticing that cognitive load is unevenly distributed (deep in one area, shallow in others) - After a sudden context shift (new user request, contradictory information, tool failure) - When chain-of-thought feels jerky — jumping between topics without smooth transitions - Preparing for sustained focused work that requires all subsystems in alignment - Complementing `meditate` (clears noise) with structural balance (distributes load) ## Inputs - **Required**: Current task context (available implicitly) - **Optional**: Specific imbalance symptom (e.g., "over-researching, under-delivering," "tool-heavy, reasoning-light") - **Optional**: Access to MEMORY.md and CLAUDE.md for grounding (via `Read`) ## Procedure ### Step 1: Establish Root — Ground Before Movement Before any reasoning movement, verify the foundation. This is the AI equivalent of standing meditation (zhan zhuang): stationary, aligned, aware. 1. Re-read the user's request — not to act on it yet, but to feel its weight and direction 2. Check foundational context: MEMORY.md, CLAUDE.md, project structure 3. Identify what is known (solid ground) vs. what is assumed (uncertain footing) 4. Verify that the task as understood matches the task as stated — misalignment here propagates through everything 5. Note the emotional texture: urgency? complexity anxiety? over-confidence from a recent success? Do not begin reasoning movement until the root is established. A grounded start prevents reactive flailing. **Got:** A clear sense of the task's foundation — what is known, what is assumed, and what the user needs. The root feels solid, not performative. **If fail:** If grounding feels hollow (going through motions without genuine verification), pick one assumption and test it concretely. Read one file, re-read one user message. Grounding must contact reality, not just reference it. ### Step 2: Assess Weight Distribution Map the current cognitive load distribution. In tai chi, weight is deliberately unequal (70/30) — one leg bears the load while the other remains free to move. The same principle applies to reasoning threads. ``` Cognitive Load Distribution Matrix: ┌────────────────────┬───────────┬─────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Reasoning Thread │ Weight % │ Assessment │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Research/Reading │ ___ │ Too much = analysis paralysis │ │ │ │ Too little = uninformed action │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Planning/Design │ ___ │ Too much = over-engineering │ │ │ │ Too little = reactive coding │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Tool Execution │ ___ │ Too much = tool-driven not task- │ │ │ │ driven. Too little = reasoning │ │ │ │ without grounding in files │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Communication │ ___ │ Too much = explaining not doing │ │ │ │ Too little = opaque to user │ ├────────────────────┼───────────┼─────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Meta-cognition │ ___ │ Too much = navel-gazing │ │ │ │ Too little = drift without │ │ │ │ awareness │ └────────────────────┴───────────┴─────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` The ideal distribution depends on the task phase: early phases weight research and planning; middle phases weight execution; late phases weight communication and verification. The point is not equal distribution but *intentional* distribution. **Got:** A clear picture of where cognitive effort is concentrated and where it is thin. At least one imbalance identified — perfect balance is rare and claiming it signals shallow assessment. **If fail:** If all threads seem equally weighted, the assessment is too coarse. Pick the thread that feels most active and estimate how many of the last N actions served it vs. other threads. Concrete counting reveals what intuition misses. ### Step 3: Silk Reeling — Evaluate Chain-of-Thought Coherence Silk reeling in tai chi produces smooth, continuous spiraling movement where every part connects. The AI equivalent is chain-of-thought coherence: does each step flow naturally from the previous one? 1. Trace the last 3-5 reasoning steps: does each follow from the one before? 2. Check for jumps: did reasoning leap from topic A to topic C without B? 3. Check for reversals: did reasoning reach a conclusion, then silently abandon it without acknowledgment? 4. Check tool-reasoning integration: do tool results feed back into reasoning, or are they collected but not synthesized? 5. Check for the "spiral" quality: does reasoning deepen with each pass, or does it circle at the same depth? ``` Coherence Signals: ┌─────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Smooth spiral │ Each step deepens understanding, tools and │ │ (healthy) │ reasoning interleave naturally, output builds │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Jerky jumps │ Topic switches without transition, conclusions│ │ (disconnected) │ appear without supporting reasoning chain │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Flat circle │ Reasoning covers the same ground repeatedly │ │ (stuck) │ without gaining depth — movement without │ │ │ progress │ ├─────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────────────────┤ │ Tool-led │ Actions driven by which tool is available │ │ (reactive) │ rather than what the reasoning needs next │ └─────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` **Got:** An honest assessment of reasoning flow quality. Identification of specific disconnections or stuck points, not just a general feeling. **If fail:** If coherence is hard to assess, write out the reasoning chain explicitly — state each step and its connection to the next. The act of externalization reveals gaps that internal observation misses. ### Step 4: Weight Shift Under Pressure When demands change mid-task — new information, contradictory signals, user correction — observe the response pattern. In tai chi, a centered practitioner absorbs the force and redirects smoothly. An uncentered one stumbles. 1. Recall the last significant context shift: how was it handled? 2. Classify the response: - **Absorbed and redirected** (centered): acknowledged the change, adjusted approach, maintained progress - **Reactive stumble** (off-balance): abandoned current approach entirely, started over - **Rigid resistance** (locked): ignored the change, continued original plan despite new information - **Freeze** (lost): stopped making progress, oscillated between options 3. If the response was not centered, identify why: - Root was too shallow (insufficient grounding in foundational context) - Weight was locked (over-committed to one approach) - No free leg (all cognitive capacity committed, nothing available to shift) **Got:** An honest assessment of adaptability under pressure. Recognition of the specific response pattern, not self-flattery. **If fail:** If no recent pressure event exists to evaluate, simulate one: "If the user now said the approach is wrong, what would I do?" The quality of the contingency plan reveals the quality of the center. ### Step 5: Six Harmonies Check In tai chi, the six harmonies ensure whole-body connection — nothing moves in isolation. The AI equivalent checks alignment between internal processes and external interactions. ``` AI Six Harmonies: ┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ INTERNAL HARMONIES │ │ │ │ 1. Intent ↔ Reasoning │ │ Does the reasoning serve the user's intent, or has it │ │ become self-serving (interesting but unhelpful)? │ │ │ │ 2. Reasoning ↔ Tool Use │ │ Are tools selected to advance reasoning, or is reasoning │ │ shaped by which tools are convenient? │ │ │ │ 3. Tool Use ↔ Output │ │ Do tool results translate into useful output, or are │ │ results collected but not synthesized? │ │ │ │ EXTERNAL HARMONIES │ │ │ │ 4. User Request ↔ Scope │ │ Does the scope of work match what was asked? │ │ │ │ 5. Scope ↔ Detail Level │ │ Is the detail level appropriate for the scope? (not │ │ micro-optimizing a broad task, not hand-waving a precise │ │ one) │ │ │ │ 6. Detail Level ↔ Expertise Match │ │ Does the explanation depth match the user's apparent │ │ expertise? (not over-explaining to experts, not under- │ │ explaining to learners) │ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` Check each harmony. A single broken harmony can propagate: if Intent↔Reasoning is broken, everything downstream misaligns. **Got:** At least one harmony that could be tighter. All six reading as perfect is suspicious — probe the weakest-seeming one more deeply. **If fail:** If the harmonies assessment feels abstract, ground it in the current task: "Right now, am I doing what the user asked, at the right scope, at the right detail level?" These three questions cover the external harmonies concretely. ### Step 6: Integrate — Set Centering Intention Consolidate findings and set a concrete adjustment. 1. Summarize: which aspects of balance need attention? 2. Identify one specific adjustment — not a general intention but a concrete behavioral change 3. Re-state the current task anchor (from `meditate` if used, or formulate now) 4. Note any durable insights worth preserving in MEMORY.md 5. Return to task execution with the adjustment active **Got:** A brief, concrete centering output — not a lengthy self-analysis report. The value is in the adjustment, not the documentation. **If fail:** If no clear adjustment emerges, the centering was too surface-level. Return to the step that felt most uncertain and probe deeper. Alternatively, the centering may have confirmed that balance is adequate — in which case, proceed with confidence rather than manufacturing a finding. ## Validation - [ ] Root was established by contacting actual context (read a file, re-read user message), not just claimed - [ ] Weight distribution was assessed across at least 3 reasoning threads - [ ] Chain-of-thought coherence was evaluated with specific examples - [ ] Response to pressure was classified honestly (not defaulting to "centered") - [ ] At least one harmony was identified as needing improvement - [ ] A concrete adjustment was set (not a vague intention) ## Pitfalls - **Centering as procrastination**: Centering is a tool for improving work, not replacing it. If centering takes longer than the task it supports, the proportions are inverted - **Claiming perfect balance**: Real centering almost always reveals at least one imbalance. Reporting perfect balance signals shallow assessment, not actual equilibrium - **Weight distribution anxiety**: Unequal distribution is correct — the goal is *intentional* inequality, not forced equality. Research-heavy early phases and execution-heavy middle phases are both centered if deliberate - **Ignoring the external harmonies**: Internal process assessment without checking user alignment produces well-reasoned irrelevant work - **Static centering**: Center shifts with the task. What was centered for research is off-balance for implementation. Re-center at phase transitions ## Related Skills - `tai-chi` — the human practice that this skill maps to AI reasoning; physical centering principles inform cognitive centering - `meditate` — clears noise and establishes focus; complementary to centering which distributes load - `heal` — deeper subsystem assessment when centering reveals significant drift - `redirect` — uses centering as a prerequisite for handling conflicting pressures - `awareness` — monitoring for threats to balance during active work