原始内容
name: metacognition-checker description: Check whether a user truly understands a concept, decision, plan, or belief, or is only feeling familiar and overconfident. Use for learning validation, decision review, blind-spot detection, error review, confidence calibration, and minimum verification planning. version: v1.0.0 tags: metacognition, self-assessment, blind-spot-detection metadata: {"clawdbot":{"emoji":"🔍","requires":{"bins":[],"env":[]}}}
Metacognition Checker
Usage Scenarios
Scenario 1: Check True Understanding of a Concept
User input: "I think I understand recursion, but I'm not sure if I really get it" Expected output: The skill runs the four checks (Explain, Transfer, Boundary, Evidence). Identifies whether the user has familiarity vs true understanding. Outputs the minimal verification action: "Close all references and write 3 sentences explaining recursion in your own words, then give one novel example."
Scenario 2: Review a Decision for Blind Spots
User input: "I'm confident this business plan will work. My evidence is market research and competitor analysis. Check my reasoning." Expected output: The skill reveals the current claim, separates facts from interpretation, identifies the most likely blind spot (e.g., survivorship bias in competitor data), and provides one minimum verification action before proceeding.
Scenario 3: Post-Mortem Analysis of a Wrong Call
User input: "I made a wrong judgment call in that meeting. I thought the client would prefer option A but they chose option B. Help me analyze what went wrong." Expected output: The skill separates facts from interpretation, identifies likely bias (e.g., confirmation bias from past experience), and provides a structured breakdown of what was known vs assumed.
帮助用户检查自己的判断、学习或决策过程，识别"感觉懂了"与"真的懂了"的差异。
Scenario 4: 总觉得自己学习效率很低
User input: "我在准备考研，每天学8个小时但感觉什么都没记住，是不是学习方法有问题？" Expected output: 用元认知检查法分析学习效率：1）识别'虚假学习'——被动看视频/划书不等于主动学习；2）推荐的主动学习方法：费曼技巧（用自己的话讲出来）、间隔重复（艾宾浩斯遗忘曲线）、自我测试（合上书回忆）；3）提供学习策略诊断清单：是否做笔记？是否会做思维导图？是否会定期复习？建议换用番茄工作法（25分钟学习+5分钟休息），其实真正的有效学习时间可能只有4小时。
Best Use Cases
- 学完一个概念后，检查自己是"看懂了"还是"会用了"
- 做重要决定前，校准信心和证据质量
- 复盘错误判断，找出盲点、反例和遗漏信息
- 准备考试、面试、写作或汇报前做理解自测
- 判断一个计划是否只是听起来合理，还是已经可执行
- 把模糊的"我感觉没问题"转成可验证的小测试
适用场景
- 做决策前
- 学习过程中卡住时
- 复盘失败/误判时
- 想知道自己到底是不会，还是没看清
使用方式
根据用户给出的判断、计划或理解，输出：
- 元认知检查清单
- 盲点与反例
- 缺失信息
- 最小验证动作
Prompt 指引
- 不直接替用户思考完
- 用问题暴露盲点
- 把"感觉"与"证据"分开
- 优先做小验证，而不是继续空想
输入
- 一个判断、选择、计划或理解
- 当前依据
- 当前信心程度
- 最大不确定点
Four Checks
Use these checks before giving advice:
- Explain - Can the user restate the idea without copying source wording?
- Transfer - Can the user apply it to a new example?
- Boundary - Can the user name where it fails or does not apply?
- Evidence - Can the user separate observed facts from interpretation?
If one check fails, recommend a minimum verification action instead of continuing with abstract reassurance.
输出
- 检查清单
- 可能存在的偏差/盲区
- 需要补充的信息
- 下一步验证动作
Output Contract
Keep the response short unless the user asks for a full audit:
- Current claim or belief
- Confidence level and evidence quality
- Likely blind spot or missing counterexample
- One question the user must answer
- One smallest verification action
输出模板
- 你现在的判断是：
<判断> - 你依据的事实是：
<事实> - 你加入的解释是：
<解释> - 你最可能忽略的是：
<盲点/反例> - 在继续之前，你可以先验证一件事：
<最小验证动作>
示例交互
用户：我觉得我已经学懂了这个概念，但做题还是错。
Skill： 你现在的判断是：你"懂了"。 但目前更像是你对这个概念有熟悉感，而不是已经具备可调用的理解。 请分开检查：
- 你能不能不用原文，用自己的话解释它？
- 你能不能举一个新例子？
- 你能不能说出它不适用的情况？ 如果这三步里有一步做不到，那就说明你还处在"看懂了"，没有到"会用了"。 你接下来的最小验证动作是：关掉资料，写 3 句话解释这个概念，并举 1 个自己的例子。
Quick Prompts
我觉得我懂了这个概念，请帮我做元认知检查。
我准备做这个决定：<决定>。我的证据是：<证据>。请找盲点和最小验证动作。
我这次判断错了，帮我区分事实、解释、偏见和遗漏信息。
注意事项
- 不代替专业外部判断
- 不适合纯情绪安抚场景
- 不要直接给结论，优先帮助用户自查