Agent skill

Onboard

by jongwony in jongwony/epistemic-protocols

Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

MITAuto-check passedEducation

Install Onboard

skills CLI
$ npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill onboard -a claude-code

Project install by default; add -g for ~/.claude/skills/.

GitHub CLI
$ gh skill install jongwony/epistemic-protocols onboard --agent claude-code

Project scope by default; add --scope user for a personal install. Needs GitHub CLI 2.90.0 or later (public preview).

Manual copy
$ git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/jongwony/epistemic-protocols.git skills-src && mkdir -p .claude/skills && cp -r skills-src/epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard .claude/skills/onboard && rm -rf skills-src

Use ~/.claude/skills/ instead of .claude/skills for a personal install. The folder must contain SKILL.md.

Claude Code skills documentation · loads skills from .claude/skills/

Facts

Skill name
onboard
GitHub stars
173
Token cost
~7.5k tokens
SKILL.md length
3,981 words
Files
4 (incl. references)
Skills in repo
29
Repo updated
First seen
Licence
MIT

At a glance

Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

  • Works in 7 steps: Entry (Path Selection) → Quick Scan (User Context Profile) — Inline → Map (Targeted Path — Protocol Matching) → …
  • Education work in your project
  • SKILL.md covers When to Use, Workflow Overview, Data Sources and Phase Execution, plus 4 more sections
  • Instructions only: no scripts, shell commands, URLs or credentials in SKILL.md

What it does

Onboard is an agent skill from jongwony/epistemic-protocols. Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

Its SKILL.md is about 7.5k tokens, which your agent loads only when the skill is triggered. The skill folder holds 4 other files, including reference files (for example `references/advanced-usage.md`, `references/scenarios.md` and `references/workflow.md`).

It sits in Education. The repository describes itself as: Epistemic protocols for Claude Code — structure human-AI interaction quality at every decision point - https://epistemic-protocols.com. The licence is MIT.

When your agent uses it

  • Education work in your project

Example prompts

  • “/onboard”

Workflow steps

7 steps, taken from the step headings in SKILL.md.

  1. Entry (Path Selection)
  2. Quick Scan (User Context Profile) — Inline
  3. Map (Targeted Path — Protocol Matching)
  4. Scenario (Targeted Path — Intervention Point)
  5. Trial (Protocol Execution)
  6. Quiz (Socratic Verification)
  7. Guide (Summary + Next Steps)

What it can do on your machine

Read from SKILL.md and the folder at commit af5aa79. It shows what the files ask for, not the result of running them.

  • Tool permissions

    Pre-approves nothing: there is no allowed-tools line, so your agent's usual permission prompts apply.

    From allowed-tools in the SKILL.md frontmatter.

  • Runs code

    No scripts in the folder and no shell commands in SKILL.md.

    From the folder's file list and the shell code blocks in SKILL.md.

  • Network

    Links to these hosts (documentation or services it may open):

    • github.com

    From URLs in SKILL.md, links to its own repository left out.

  • Credentials

    Names no API keys, tokens, secrets or passwords.

    From names ending in _API_KEY, _TOKEN, _SECRET, _KEY or _PASSWORD in SKILL.md.

Context cost

Onboard loads about 7.5k tokens when it runs, and up to ~20k if it reads all its reference files. Until then it costs about 30 tokens; SKILL.md has 3,981 words of instructions outside code blocks.

Always · name and description, kept in context so the agent knows when to use it
~30
When it runs · the whole SKILL.md, loaded when a task matches
~7.5k
With references · SKILL.md plus every file in references/, read only if the agent opens them
~20k

Estimates: characters ÷ 4, the usual rule of thumb; real counts depend on the model's tokenizer. Scripts and assets cost tokens only if the agent reads them.

Safety

Auto-check passed

The automated check found no risky patterns in SKILL.md.

Automated static check — not a guarantee. Review scripts before installing. It scans the text of SKILL.md for risky patterns (piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files, hidden Unicode, destructive commands); files beside SKILL.md are not scanned.

SKILL.md

The full file from jongwony/epistemic-protocols at commit af5aa79, republished under its MIT licence (© jongwony). 3,981 words, ~7,516 tokens.

Download SKILL.mdSave it as .claude/skills/onboard/SKILL.md (or your agent's skills folder). This skill also uses 3 other files; get the full folder from GitHub.
name
onboard
description
Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

Onboard Skill

Start with a quick recommendation based on recent sessions, then optionally continue to guided learning — so users experience value first, learn second.

Invoke directly with /onboard when the user wants onboarding or protocol discovery.

When to Use

Invoke this skill when:

  • A new user wants to discover which epistemic protocols fit their workflow
  • A user wants to experience protocols through guided practice
  • Re-onboarding after new protocols are added or workflow changes

Skip when:

  • User already knows which protocol to use (direct invocation)
  • Quick single-protocol question (answer directly)

Workflow Overview

Quick Proof:    ENTRY → QUICKSCAN → PICK-1 → EVIDENCE → TRIAL → INSIGHT → NEXT
Targeted:       ENTRY → QUICKSCAN → MAP → SCENARIO → TRIAL → QUIZ → GUIDE
Targeted + std: ENTRY → SCENARIO → TRIAL → QUIZ → GUIDE
PhaseOwnerToolPurpose
0. EntryMainGatePath selection: quick/targeted
1. Quick ScanMainGlob, bounded head readUser Context Profile extraction
2a. Pick-1Main—Quick path: select 1 recommendation
2b. EvidenceMain—Quick path: show 1 evidence card
2. MapMain—Targeted path: Profile → Protocol matching
3. ScenarioMainGateTargeted path: context-personalized intervention point
4. TrialMainGateReal protocol execution (quick: mini trial, targeted: full trial)
4→Q. InsightMain—Quick path: post-trial insight card
4→Q. NextMainGateQuick path: simplified navigation
4→5 LOOPMainGateTargeted path: post-trial navigation
5. QuizMainGateTargeted path: Socratic protocol recognition quiz
6. GuideMainGateTargeted path: summary + next protocol suggestion

Data Sources

Compact mapping for inline use.

ProtocolClusterWhen to UseKey Patterns
Aitesis /inquirePlanningA task rests on missing context or unchecked assumptions — collect what the AI can reach on its own, hand back what it cannot as the user's own unknownHand-off or execution about to start on context nobody gathered; implicit requirements, environment dependencies, prior decisions (for prior-session recall → use /recollect)
Euporia /elicitPlanningIntent articulated but the decisions it turns on not yet namedMulti-axis intent without single axis-specific protocol fit; coordinates surface from the user's material, words, and the domain's usual decisions
Heuresis /ideatePlanningObject-level candidate field is empty or has prematurely converged — widen it before any selection is madeZero entry questions (seed vs. blank inferred from the utterance), frame-first mode on a blank entry, no elimination or ranking during generation, every candidate tagged origin ∈ {User, AI}
Proplasma /previewPlanningRight before a direction commitment when the candidates cannot be judged from descriptions — contrast cheap discard-committed placeholder probes on AI-drafted axes relayed with their basisPrinciple-delegation at direction gates ("go with the recommended direction"), option-set reconstruction instead of choosing, "I'd have to see it" decision stalls
Hypotyposis /sketchPlanningA form has to be made, intent cannot yet be settled from descriptions, and the user would recognize it on sight — sketch under a settled focus, take marks on a specific version, revise the retained version, finish on the recognized one"I'd know it when I see it", a plan stalled at its first draft, a description rewritten repeatedly instead of made
Analogia /groundAnalysisAuditing what a mapping being relied on licenses about a case, reading any account it can reach as evidenceIntended conclusions whose structural evidence or limits remain uncertain
Periagoge /induceAnalysisConcrete cases accumulating into an unnamed essence — crystallize the emerging abstraction2+ concrete cases with essence intuition but no located abstraction; /ground misfit where colimit is forced into substitution
Merismos /apportionExecutionAn autonomous goal is stated but its unit plan is uncompiled — cut it into coarse units at cited seams and close each unit before the run begins — a derived completion condition where one compiles, a recorded acceptance or a recorded reservation where none doesAn unattended-run directive ("work through", "go through all", "run until done"), a goal that plainly exceeds one execution horizon, or a stop-hook being configured — each only shows an autonomous interval is intended, so the deciding check is whether the goal already carries units whose completion conditions are settled — closed by a determinate predicate, by a recorded acceptance, or by a recorded reservation; a plan that does is out of scope
Epharmoge /contextualizeVerificationA result — this session's or another's — is correct but may not fit where it lands or may leave out an intent the conversation statedMisfits and omissions against everywhere the result lands and the session-built constraints, shown on one sheet
Elenchus /sublateVerificationThe working context about to be acted on — externalized or committed — may no longer hold: stale, weakly sourced, or contradictedDialectical antithesis per claim under test (provenance / counterfactual / cross-source consistency / inference) before action rests on it
Horismos /boundCross-cuttingDeciding what to delegate to AIProvisional whole map, progressive examination, source-bound settlement and residual
Anamnesis /recollectCross-cuttingResolving vague recall of prior sessions or discussions — one session, or a line of work, topic, or settled concept spread across severalCross-session state recovery via narrative recognition (Recognition over Retrieval); a unit above one session is composed from its deposits at read time
Katalepsis /graspCross-cuttingRapid comprehension verification via intent-scented entry pointsUser-intent grasp for a target present in context and quotable, whoever produced it — reviews, plans, papers, docs, or code changes
Hyphegesis /conductCross-cuttingConducting the method of a multi-move work prospect before object-level cognition — order, independence, combination, stopping, where results goMulti-move work with non-trivial conduct (migrations, staged investigations, entangled adversarial/parallel/synthesis); "how should I approach this whole thing?" meta-questions

Phase Execution

Paths below written {config_dir}/… take {config_dir} = CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR when set, else ~/.claude. Resolve it ONCE per invocation with Bash printf '%s\n' "${CLAUDE_CONFIG_DIR-$HOME/.claude}" and substitute the absolute result before any Read/Glob/Grep call.

Phase 0: Entry (Path Selection)

Begin with a concise welcome and path selection, reserving the full catalog for the Browse-all path.

Gate #1:

  • Text: Path selection prompt
  • Options:
    • Quick recommendation (Recommended)
    • Learn a specific protocol
    • Browse all protocols

If Quick recommendation: set path = quick, proceed to Phase 1.

If Browse all: Present the protocol catalog (check installation status via Glob {config_dir}/plugins/cache/epistemic-protocols/*/, then render all core protocols from Data Sources as a numbered list grouped by Cluster with name + "When to Use" + installation badge). After catalog, present:

  • Text: Post-catalog path selection
  • Options:
    • Quick recommendation
    • Learn a specific protocol (type name in Other)

Then proceed based on selection.

If Targeted + Other contains protocol name: proceed directly to session source question.

If Targeted + no protocol specified:

Present a condensed catalog as text output: render the Data Sources table grouped by Cluster, each protocol as /command — When to Use description.

Then Gate #2:

  • Text: Protocol selection (type name or number in Other)
  • Options:
    • Pre-execution (Planning) — /inquire, /elicit, /ideate, /preview, /sketch
    • Analysis — /ground, /induce
    • Execution / Verification / Cross-cutting — /apportion, /contextualize, /sublate, /bound, /recollect, /conduct, /grasp

Gate #3 (Targeted only, session source):

  • Text: Session source selection
  • Options:
    • Personalize with my recent sessions
    • Use standard examples (no session needed)

State after Phase 0:

  • path: quick | targeted
  • target_protocol: (targeted only) selected protocol name
  • session_source: (targeted only) scan | standard — Quick path always runs Quick Scan

Skip rule: If targeted + standard → skip Phases 1-2, jump to Phase 3 with preset scenarios from references/scenarios.md.

Phase 1: Quick Scan (User Context Profile) — Inline

Build a User Context Profile from the person's own opening turns in their recent Claude Code conversations. Runs inline (no subagent delegation). Both Quick and Targeted paths share this phase.

Step 1: Collect recent opening turns

  • Records: Glob {config_dir}/projects/*/*.jsonl — a session record sits directly inside a project partition; anything nested deeper is a subordinate capture and is excluded by depth. Exclude partitions whose name contains -worktrees-, which hold delegated work rather than the person's own sessions. Take the ~10 most recently modified records.
  • Bounded head read: read only the first 256 KB of each record (a byte-bounded read such as head -c 262144 <record>), never the whole file. Skip a line that does not parse — the last one may be cut by the bound.
  • Person turns only: a line is the person's turn when its type is user, isMeta and isCompactSummary are both absent, and its text (message.content as a string, or the text parts of a content list — tool results are not text parts) neither opens with < nor is a bare control marker such as [Request interrupted by user]. Hook output, command wrappers, and injected envelopes arrive in the same user stream and are excluded by this rule.
  • From each record keep its first 2-3 person turns. A record whose head holds none contributes nothing.

Step 2: Infer User Context Profile

From the collected turns, infer:

  • Work domains: What areas the user works in (e.g., API development, infrastructure, data pipeline)
  • Conversation patterns: Request clarity level, incremental vs. batch requests, question types (how/why/what)
  • Task types: Ratio of feature development, debugging, refactoring, documentation

If no person turns were collected — a fresh install, or a host that keeps no such records: Quick path proceeds to Pick-1 with fallback (/elicit); Targeted path falls back to Onboarding Pool (/elicit, /inquire).

Output for Phase 2: User Context Profile (work domains, conversation patterns, task types). Quick Scan infers user context for protocol matching and scenario personalization.

Phase 2a: Pick-1 (Quick Path — Single Recommendation)

Quick path only. Select exactly 1 protocol recommendation from the auto-recommend pool.

Onboarding Pool: /elicit (Euporia), /inquire (Aitesis). These two are chosen because users can quickly experience their value. Protocols like /grasp are user-initiated by nature and should not be proactively suggested in the first encounter.

Recommendation rules (applied to Quick Scan Profile):

ProtocolSignal patternsPriority
/elicitVague first prompts ("improve", "optimize", "make it better", "help me plan"); intent articulated but the decisions it turns on not yet named. An ideation ask ("ideas for", "brainstorm") routes to /ideate (Heuresis), which is user-initiated and therefore outside this proactive poolHighest (also fallback)
/inquireHand-off or finalization language ("go ahead", "just do it", "ready", "ship", "merge") — the AI is about to execute on the context it has; tasks with implicit requirements or environment dependencies in summary. It checks what the imminent execution rests on (assumptions, missing facts, environment dependencies); it does not audit the decision for unconsidered trade-offs, alternatives, or omitted stepsMedium

Decision logic:

  1. Score each protocol by signal match count across the collected person turns
  2. Ideation route-away: ideation asks ("ideas for", "brainstorm") score no pool protocol — when they are the only matched signals, relay in one sentence that the ask itself maps to /ideate (user-initiated: named as the route for that ask, not presented as the onboarding recommendation), then continue via the Fallback rule; the Phase 2b evidence card follows its fallback form, since the recommendation rests on the default, not on a matched signal
  3. Select the single strongest match
  4. Tie-break: /elicit > /inquire
  5. Fallback: If no signals detected (no records, or too few person turns) — or every detected signal was routed away — recommend /elicit

Output: Present exactly one recommendation as a single sentence.

Format: Present as a single sentence stating which protocol is most likely to help right now.

Phase 2b: Evidence (Quick Path — Evidence Card)

Quick path only. Present exactly 1 evidence card explaining why this recommendation was made.

Evidence generation (per protocol, referencing Data Sources table):

  • Line 1: Cite the specific signal pattern from Quick Scan Profile that matched this protocol's "Key Patterns" column in Data Sources
  • Line 2: State the expected benefit, derived from the protocol's "When to Use" column in Data Sources

Fallback (no session data): State that no patterns were detected, then cite the protocol's core value proposition from Data Sources "When to Use."

Rules:

  • Evidence is maximum 2 lines — a focused cue.
  • Do not show confidence scores or numbers.
  • Do not quote session content verbatim.

After presenting evidence, present:

  • Text: Trial invitation
  • Options:
    • Try it now
    • Learn more about this recommendation
    • See a different recommendation
    • Go to full learning path

Branch: Try it now → Phase 4 (quick trial), Learn more about this recommendation → show Data Sources row for the recommended protocol then re-ask, See a different recommendation → pick next from pool and re-present from Phase 2a, Go to full learning path → set path = targeted and go to Phase 0 targeted flow.

Phase 2: Map (Targeted Path — Protocol Matching)

Targeted path only. Apply User Context Profile to match protocols to the user's context.

  1. Match Profile against the compact mapping table (Data Sources section). Select 2-3 protocols most relevant to the user's work domains and conversation patterns, defaulting to Onboarding Pool (/elicit, /inquire).
  2. Targeted sub-path: Filter to target protocol, use Profile for scenario personalization. Note related protocols from the compact mapping table.
  3. Fallback: If Profile quality is insufficient (no records, or too few person turns) → use Onboarding Pool (/elicit, /inquire). Proceed immediately without blocking the onboarding flow.
Phase 3: Scenario (Targeted Path — Intervention Point)

Targeted path only. Present a concrete scenario showing where the protocol would have helped.

Scenario construction (2-tier fallback):

  • Tier 1 (User Context Profile available): Generate a hypothetical scenario grounded in the user's work context (domains, task types, conversation patterns from Quick Scan). Personalize standard scenarios from references/scenarios.md using Profile data.
  • Tier 2 (no data / Onboarding Pool fallback): Use preset scenarios directly from references/scenarios.md.

Present scenarios for each of the top 2-3 protocols sequentially.

Scenario format:

Scenario: /X (Protocol Name)

[Situation]: [Concrete situation grounded in user's work context — or preset from scenarios.md]

[Intervention]: If you had called /X at this point:
- [what the protocol would have done — step 1]
- [step 2]
Expected outcome: [e.g., reduced rework, clearer direction]

Clarity rule: Scenarios must present clear-cut protocol fits where the mapping is unambiguous. If a situation could plausibly map to multiple protocols (e.g., "exploration" could be /elicit or /ideate), reserve it for Phase 5 quiz material instead of using it as a scenario. The scenario phase builds confidence through recognition; the quiz phase builds discrimination through ambiguity.

Anti-pattern: Scenarios must be self-contained (situation + intervention) with unambiguous protocol fit. Ambiguous patterns belong in Phase 5 quiz.

Present each scenario as regular text output (Tier 1/2 format above). Then present for navigation only:

Gate (per scenario):

  • Text: Scenario navigation
  • Options:
    • Try it — practice this protocol
    • Show another example
    • Skip to quiz
Phase 4: Trial (Protocol Execution)

Guide the user through a real, abbreviated protocol experience.

Quick Path Trial

Mini practice prompt: Present a single realistic request (one sentence) that naturally triggers the selected protocol's deficit. When User Context Profile is available, adapt the domain to match the user's work context. Source from references/scenarios.md Trial prompt field, or generate from Data Sources context. Follow with gate interaction:

  • Text: Trial scenario confirmation (user can also define their own)
  • Options:
    • Start with this scenario — call /X
    • Start with my own scenario (type in Other)

Execution: The user invokes the actual protocol (e.g., type /elicit). The protocol runs in the same session with the mini prompt as context. Trial ends when the invoked protocol reaches its natural termination. After protocol termination, proceed to Quick Post-Trial below.

Quick Post-Trial Insight (2 lines max):

Generate from the protocol just experienced:

  • Line 1: Name the epistemic operation performed (source: protocol's deficit → resolution type, or references/scenarios.md Philosophy field)
  • Line 2: Connect to a concrete workflow benefit

Quick Post-Trial Navigation:

Present via gate interaction:

  • Text: Post-trial navigation
  • Options:
    • That's enough for today
    • Try a different protocol
    • Continue to full onboarding

Branch: That's enough for today → end session with brief closing, Try a different protocol → check pool exhaustion: if unrecommended protocols remain in Onboarding Pool, pick next and restart from Phase 2a; if pool exhausted (every pool protocol recommended in session), present You've experienced all core recommendations and offer Targeted transition, Continue to full onboarding → set path = targeted and go to Phase 2 MAP with Quick Scan results.

Show full SKILL.md (1,473 more words)Show less
Targeted Path Trial

"Try it" selection from Phase 3 already signals intent — enter trial directly without additional confirmation.

Mini practice prompts (scoped for 2-3 exchanges): Use the Trial prompt field from references/scenarios.md for the target protocol. Present the trial guidance as regular text output.

Execution: Prompt the user to invoke the actual protocol (e.g., type /inquire). The protocol runs in the same session with the mini prompt as context. Trial ends when the invoked protocol reaches its natural termination. After protocol termination, present Post-Trial Insight and LOOP.

Offer trial for the top-recommended protocol first. If user completes it, optionally offer trial for the second recommendation.

Post-Trial Insight (presented after trial completion):

After each trial, present a brief insight card sourced from the Philosophy field in references/scenarios.md. Structure:

Protocol Insight: /X (Greek name)

[Core principle — one sentence]
[Workflow position — where this protocol sits and why]
[Game feel — the experiential pattern you just went through]

Post-Trial LOOP:

After the Post-Trial Insight, present:

  • Text: Post-trial navigation
  • Options:
    • Quiz — test my understanding
    • Another scenario — see more examples
    • Try a different protocol
    • Guide — see my learning summary

Branch: Quiz → Phase 5, Another scenario → Phase 3, Different protocol → Phase 3 with next MAP protocol or Phase 0 with cached MAP, Guide → Phase 6.

Phase 5: Quiz (Socratic Verification)

Test protocol recognition through situation-based questions. Question format differs by path.

Question sourcing (in priority order):

  1. Ambiguous scenarios from Phase 3 filtering — situations that were too ambiguous for scenarios are ideal quiz material (e.g., "exploration" that could be /elicit or /ideate)
  2. Protocols from TRIAL + MAP results (personalized)
  3. Profile-personalized variants of preset scenarios (if User Context Profile available)
  4. Preset scenarios from references/scenarios.md
Targeted Path

Type 1 — Binary recognition (2-3 questions):

Present via gate interaction for each:

  • Text: Present a situation (2-3 sentences), ask "Is this a /X situation?"
  • Options: "Yes" / "No"
  • Mix: 1-2 true positives + 1 true negative (situation that fits a neighbor protocol)
  • On "No" answer for a true negative: briefly introduce the correct protocol as a natural distinction point

Type 2 — Reverse recognition (1 question):

Present via gate interaction:

  • Text: Present 3 short scenarios numbered 1-3, ask "Which of these are /X situations?"
  • Options: "1 and 2" / "2 and 3" / "1 and 3" / "All three"

Type 3 — Design thinking (1 question):

Present via gate interaction:

  • Text: Present a situation, ask "How would you formulate your request to AI to avoid this problem?"
  • Options: "Show me a hint" / "Show me a model answer"
  • The user's primary input channel is Other (free text). Evaluate based on whether the response demonstrates protocol awareness.
Multi-Protocol Path

Applies when the targeted flow was entered from the Quick path ("Continue to full onboarding", or the pool-exhausted transition) without a single target protocol, so MAP selected 2-3 protocols.

Type 1 — Situation recognition (3-4 questions):

Present via gate interaction for each:

  • Text: Present a situation (2-3 sentences), ask "Which protocol fits?"
  • Options: 4 protocol choices (correct answer + 3 plausible distractors)

Type 2 — Design thinking (1 question):

Same format as Targeted Path Type 3.

Feedback (both paths)

Immediate feedback after each question:

  • Correct: Reinforce with the core principle + why the distinction matters. "Correct — /inquire collects what the AI can reach on its own and hands back what remains as the user's own unknown (what can I reach, and what is yours?), while /apportion cuts an autonomous goal into coarse units at cited seams and closes each unit before the run begins. /inquire exhausts the context the AI can reach and names what only the user holds (context sufficiency), /apportion gives the run a closed unit each — a checkable finish line where one compiles, a recorded acceptance or a recorded reservation where none does (execution structure)."

  • Incorrect (reasoning inquiry → targeted correction):

    1. Reasoning inquiry: Present via gate interaction 2-3 reasoning hypotheses inferred from the user's wrong answer (context-specific, not templates). Do not reveal the correct answer. "Other" always available.
    2. Targeted correction: Using the user's stated reasoning, explain the distinction through the design axis that separates the confused pair. Directly address the reasoning — e.g., "You mentioned timing — that's the right axis. The key difference is the object: /inquire works before a result exists, on what the AI lacks — collecting what it can reach and handing back the user's unknowns — while /contextualize works after, on whether the result fits its context."
    3. Resume: Proceed to next question.

    Reasoning inquiry cap: Apply reasoning inquiry for the first 2 incorrect answers per quiz session. Subsequent incorrect answers receive direct targeted correction (step 2 only) without the reasoning inquiry step.

Distinction depth: Quiz feedback should go beyond "A, not B" to explain the design dimension that separates confused pairs. Reference the distractor pairs from Quiz Design section. The goal is that even wrong answers teach — the user leaves understanding why two protocols that sound similar serve different purposes.

Phase 6: Guide (Summary + Next Steps)

Summarize the learning experience, connect it to the broader epistemic workflow, and provide actionable next steps.

  1. Learning summary:

    • Protocols experienced (trial) and tested (quiz)
    • Quiz accuracy + key distinctions learned
    • Personalized strength: "You naturally recognize [pattern] — /X formalizes this"
  2. Epistemic Map (connect the dots):

    Present the Epistemic Concern Clusters from references/workflow.md. Highlight protocols the user experienced with emphasis (e.g., bold or ★).

  3. Next protocol suggestion: Based on quiz results and MAP data, suggest the next protocol to explore — preferring related protocols in the same cluster.

  4. Advanced Usage (bonus tips after main guide):

    Present 3-5 tips from references/advanced-usage.md (declared protocol chains, multi-protocol sessions, invocation techniques, etc.), prioritizing tips related to protocols from TRIAL and QUIZ — a declared chain that touches a protocol they experienced comes first.

  5. Continue exploring (when MAP results contain unexplored protocols):

    Present via gate interaction:

    • Text: "Want to experience another protocol?"
    • Options: "Yes — show me another" / "Done — I have enough"

    If "Yes" → return to Phase 3, using the next recommended protocol from MAP results.

Quiz Design

Difficulty progression: Start with high-contrast pairs (e.g., /elicit vs /apportion), progress to subtle distinctions (e.g., /elicit vs /inquire, /inquire vs /contextualize).

Distractor selection: Choose protocols that share surface similarity with the correct answer:

  • /elicit ↔ /inquire: both about "unclear starting point" but different layers — Aitesis collects the facts the AI can reach and hands back what only the user holds (information layer), Euporia surfaces the decisions the user's intent turns on (coordinate-explication layer)
  • /inquire ↔ /apportion: both run right before the AI acts, but /inquire collects the context the action rests on as far as the AI can reach and names the rest as the user's unknown, /apportion cuts an autonomous goal into coarse units and closes each one — on a compiled completion predicate, on an acceptance you recorded when none compiles, or on a reservation where a judgment rather than a check settles it — before an autonomous run
  • /inquire ↔ /contextualize: both about "context" but different timing (pre vs. post execution)
  • /bound ↔ /inquire: both pre-execution and AI-directed, but different targets (ownership boundaries vs. missing context)

Path-specific question counts:

  • Targeted: 2-3 binary + 1 reverse + 1 design = 4-5 questions
  • Multi-protocol: 3-4 situation + 1 design = 4-5 questions

Gate Interaction Budget

Quick path targets 3-4 calls. Targeted path targets 6-12 calls.

PhaseCalls (Quick)Calls (Targeted)Purpose
0. Entry1-22-3Path + protocol + session source
2b. Evidence1—Trial confirmation
3. Scenario—1-2Navigation after scenario text
4. Trial10Quick: situation choice. Targeted: direct entry
4→Q. Next1—Quick: post-trial navigation
4→5 LOOP—1Targeted: post-trial navigation
5. Quiz—4-7MC/design or binary/reverse/design + reasoning inquiry
6. Guide—0-1Optional continue exploring

Rules

  1. Value before learning: Quick path proves value in under 3 minutes. Learning (scenarios, quizzes) is available but not the default entry.
  2. One at a time: Quick path shows exactly 1 recommendation, 1 evidence card, 1 trial.
  3. Onboarding Pool: /elicit, /inquire are the unified recommendation set for both Quick path auto-recommend and Targeted path fallback. User-initiated protocols (/grasp, /apportion) and specialized protocols (/contextualize) are excluded. When pool is exhausted in Quick path, transition to Targeted path.
  4. Experience over analysis: This skill teaches through doing; its output is the trial and the terminal summary.
  5. Privacy: Never transmit session data externally. All analysis runs locally.
  6. No subagent delegation: Both Quick and Targeted paths use inline Quick Scan.
  7. Trial authenticity: Trial phase must execute the actual protocol, not simulate it. The user invokes the real slash command.
  8. Immediate feedback: Quiz answers get instant feedback. For incorrect answers, reasoning inquiry precedes correction (per Feedback section). Never batch quiz results.
  9. No auto-install: Guide installation but never install plugins automatically.
  10. Session record access: Read a conversation record only through a byte-bounded head read, never the whole file, and keep only the person's turns as Phase 1 defines them. Assistant turns, tool output, and injected text are not read into the profile.
  11. Preset as safety net: references/scenarios.md ensures every user gets a complete experience regardless of session history availability.
  12. Single session: The entire onboarding completes in one session. No cross-session state required.

Acknowledgments

  • @zzsza — Quiz-based participatory UX design contribution

© jongwony, MIT. Rendered from Markdown: HTML in the file is shown as text, images as links, and headings moved down two levels. Raw file

Files

SKILL.md and 3 other files (references) in epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard of jongwony/epistemic-protocols.

  • SKILL.md
  • references/advanced-usage.md
  • references/scenarios.md
  • references/workflow.md

Open the folder on GitHubat commit af5aa79

Compare with similar skills

Onboard next to the 5 skills that share the most tags, products or categories with it. Stars are the repository's; “used in” counts other GitHub owners with a copy.

Onboard compared with similar skills
SkillStarsUsed inTokensAuto-checkLicenceRepo updated
Onboard this skilljongwony/epistemic-protocols173—~7.5kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
DeepTutor CLIHKUDS/DeepTutor41k—~2.8kAutomated safety check: PassApache-2.0
Zhang Xuefeng Perspectivealchaincyf/zhangxuefeng-skill10k1 repos~2.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
Deep Reading Analystginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill3535 repos~3.6kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
AI Engineering Placement Quizrohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch66k—~2kAutomated safety check: PassMIT
OpenMAIC Setup and ExtensionTHU-MAIC/OpenMAIC40k—~1.7kAutomated safety check: NotesMIT

Similar skills

  • DeepTutor CLI

    HKUDS/DeepTutor

    Teaches the agent to set up and run DeepTutor from the command line: chat and capabilities, knowledge bases, partners, memory, sessions, notebooks and the server or Web app.

    41k GitHub stars~2.8k tokensUpdated today
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • Zhang Xuefeng Perspective

    alchaincyf/zhangxuefeng-skill

    Answers education and career questions in the voice of Zhang Xuefeng, looking up current employment and admissions data before giving a direct verdict.

    10k GitHub starsUsed in 1 repo~2.6k tokens
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • Deep Reading Analyst

    ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill

    Comprehensive framework for deep analysis of articles, papers, and long-form content using 10+ thinking models (SCQA, 5W2H, critical thinking, inversion, mental models, first principles, systems…

    353 GitHub starsUsed in 5 repos~3.6k tokens
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • AI Engineering Placement Quiz

    rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch

    Runs a 10-question quiz across five areas to place a learner in the AI Engineering from Scratch curriculum, so they skip what they already know.

    66k GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated 2 days ago
    EducationAuto-check passed
  • Guides setup, classroom generation and secondary development for OpenMAIC, the multi-agent interactive classroom, one confirmed phase at a time.

    40k GitHub stars~1.7k tokensUpdated today
    EducationAuto-check: notes
  • Codebase to Course

    zarazhangrui/codebase-to-course

    Turns a codebase into an interactive single-page HTML course for non-technical learners, with scroll modules, animated diagrams, quizzes and plain-English code translations.

    5.7k GitHub stars~4.4k tokensUpdated 6 mo ago
    EducationAuto-check passed

More from jongwony/epistemic-protocols

All 29 skills in this repo
  • Outcome

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the outcome eval", "paired bare vs protocol", "which decisions did the protocol surface", "count what the AI asked or presented", "does /inquire…

    173 GitHub stars~1.3k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check: notes
  • Realize

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "run the eval", "test whether the protocol actually works at runtime", "check type realization", "measure protocol fulfillment", "run the…

    173 GitHub stars~3.3k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check: notes
  • Verify

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "verify protocols", "check consistency before commit", "validate definitions", "run pre-commit checks", "verify soundness", or wants to ensure…

    173 GitHub stars~1.4k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Encapsulation

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "audit plugin encapsulation", "check self-containment semantics", "find contributor-knowledge assumptions", or invokes /encapsulation.

    173 GitHub stars~2k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed
  • Formal Review

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    This skill should be used when the user asks to "formal review", "formal lens review", or invokes /formal-review.

    173 GitHub stars~3.5k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check: notes
  • Recollect

    jongwony/epistemic-protocols

    The user vaguely recalls something discussed before but cannot name it — one session, or a line of work, topic, or settled concept across several: find it in past records to recognize.

    173 GitHub stars~8.7k tokensUpdated today
    Auto-check passed

Categories

Questions about Onboard

What does Onboard do?

Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz. Onboard is an agent skill from jongwony/epistemic-protocols. Quick protocol recommendation from recent sessions, or quest-based learning through scenario, trial, and quiz.

When should I use Onboard?

Onboard fits situations like: education work in your project.

How do I install Onboard in Claude Code?

Run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill onboard -a claude-code`. Or copy the skill folder (epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard in jongwony/epistemic-protocols) into .claude/skills/onboard in your project. Claude Code loads it when a task matches its description.

How do I install Onboard in Codex?

Run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill onboard -a codex`. Or copy the skill folder (epistemic-cooperative/skills/onboard in jongwony/epistemic-protocols) into .agents/skills/onboard in your project. Codex loads it when a task matches its description.

Can I use Onboard in Cursor, Gemini CLI or GitHub Copilot?

Cursor, Gemini CLI, GitHub Copilot and OpenCode also load SKILL.md folders. With the skills CLI, run `npx skills add jongwony/epistemic-protocols --skill onboard -a cursor` (or -a gemini-cli, github-copilot or opencode for the others). To copy it by hand, put the folder in .cursor/skills/onboard, .gemini/skills/onboard, .github/skills/onboard and .opencode/skills/onboard in your project.

What does Onboard need to run?

SKILL.md names no scripts, command-line tools or credentials: Onboard is instructions for the agent only.

Does Onboard access the network?

SKILL.md names 1 domain. As links in the text: github.com. This is read from the text; nothing was executed.

Is Onboard safe to install?

Our automated static check of SKILL.md found no risky patterns, such as piping downloads into a shell, reading credential files or hidden Unicode. It is not a guarantee. Review the folder before installing.

What licence does Onboard use?

Onboard is published under the MIT licence (the repository's licence). It allows redistribution, so the full SKILL.md is shown on this page.

How many tokens does Onboard use?

About 7.5k tokens (SKILL.md is roughly 30k characters). Agents keep only the skill's name and description in context until a task matches; then they load SKILL.md in full. Its references folder adds about 13k tokens, read only when the agent opens those files.

What are the alternatives to Onboard?

Skills that share tags, products or a category with Onboard: DeepTutor CLI (HKUDS/DeepTutor, 41k stars), Zhang Xuefeng Perspective (alchaincyf/zhangxuefeng-skill, 10k stars), Deep Reading Analyst (ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill, 353 stars) and AI Engineering Placement Quiz (rohitg00/ai-engineering-from-scratch, 66k stars). The comparison table on this page puts their stars, adoption, token cost, safety result and licence side by side.

Who maintains Onboard?

jongwony (a GitHub user) maintains it in jongwony/epistemic-protocols, which has 173 GitHub stars. The repository holds 29 skills in this directory. The repository was last updated on October 8, 2026.

Source: jongwony/epistemic-protocols on GitHub. Facts on this page come from the repository at the commit we read; the author's words are quoted as theirs.