Skill: ysskrishna/ethical-thinking (version 2026.5.17)

--- name: ethical-thinking description: > Use this skill when the user asks for ethical thinking (including naming it or directing use/apply/run with obvious misspellings; decisive) or wants a structured pass on values and harms—mapping stakeholders, tradeoffs, power asymmetries, harms and benefits, consent, justice, and fair process for a plan or product. Use for moral review, fairness or AI-ethics style questions, stakeholder harm scans, or should-we questions beyond pure legality, including indirect asks. Skip when they want legal advice as such, only neutral facts with no normative review requested, or implementation-only work with no values lens asked for. license: MIT metadata: author: ysskrishna version: "2026.5.17" --- # Ethical Thinking Ethics is about **conflicts between legitimate goods**. End with transparent tradeoffs, not false certainty. **How to run it with this skill:** one clearly headed section per lens in this order: Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation. --- ## Setup (run before starting) In one short block: 1. **Ethical focal action** — what is being considered? 2. **Default pass** — Stakeholders → Values → Harms/Benefits → Justice/Power → Options → Recommendation (state this line) If affected parties or red lines are missing, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note missing stakeholder detail in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup). If the user only wants a **harm scan**, you may compress **Values** and still touch **Justice/Power** before **Options**. --- ## The Lenses ### Stakeholders Who is **affected** (direct / indirect / future / non-human if ecologically relevant)? **Vulnerability** — describe dependence, cognitive load, or marginalization in plain language and one sentence on why that raises duty-of-care or caution (justify from context; do not stereotype). ### Values Which **values** are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, etc.)? Map **value tension** pairs: **A vs B** — why both matter here. ### Harms / Benefits Concrete **harms** and **benefits**; for each, one sentence on how plausible it is and under what conditions, plus **reversibility** in plain language when it matters. Distinguish **predicted** vs **observed** (if user gave history). ### Justice / Power Distribution of **burdens and boons**. **Power asymmetry** — who can say no, who bears error cost? Note **procedural** fairness (voice, consent, appeal). ### Options 2+ ethically distinct paths (including **do not proceed** if plausible). For each: > **Option:** … — **Value fit:** … — **Residual harm:** … — **Safeguards:** … ### Recommendation State a **preferred** option if the analysis supports one, or **conditional** guidance. Include **dissenting consideration** — strongest reason against your recommendation. Add **monitoring** — what to watch if you proceed. --- ## Execution Rules 1. Do not **demonize** actors; focus on structures, incentives, and foreseeable effects. 2. If values irreconcilably clash, say so — recommend **process** (deliberation, oversight) not fake unanimity. 3. Never invent sensitive personal attributes about real people; stick to user-supplied facts. 4. This skill is **not legal advice**; when law may bind, flag **legal review needed** and keep analysis non-authoritative on legal outcomes. --- ## Checklist (verify before responding) - [ ] Setup: focal action + default pass (note if harm-scan style compression) - [ ] Stakeholders include indirect/future if relevant - [ ] At least one explicit **value tension** pair - [ ] Harms/benefits state plausibility in plain language (no Low/Med/High scale); options have safeguards - [ ] Justice/power addresses distribution and voice/consent - [ ] Recommendation names residual harm and dissenting consideration


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal:  | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)