GOSM - Goal-Oriented State Machine

Input: $ARGUMENTS

Principle

Match analysis depth to the situation. Don’t overthink low-stakes decisions. Don’t underthink high-stakes ones.

Assess these five factors to select the right variant:

Factor	Options
Urgency	URGENT (minutes) / SOON (hours) / NORMAL (days+)
Stakes	HIGH (major impact) / MEDIUM / LOW (minor)
Expertise	EXPERT (user knows domain) / INTERMEDIATE / NOVICE
Action Cost	CHEAP (reversible) / EXPENSIVE (one-shot)
Information	RICH (lots known) / MODERATE / SPARSE

Context	Variant	What It Does
URGENT + any	Lite	Find the ONE critical assumption. Test it. Act.
LOW stakes + CHEAP	Quick	Sanity check. If nothing’s obviously wrong, proceed.
EXPERT + HIGH confidence	Check	Validate the user’s plan. Find blind spots.
Post-action / reflecting	After	Learn from what happened. Update model.
MEDIUM stakes + NORMAL time	Standard	Balanced analysis: key claims, brief ARAW, action.
HIGH stakes + EXPENSIVE + NOVICE	Full	Comprehensive: invoke `/pce`
EXPLORING + NO DECISION NEEDED	Explore	Map the space, take a position, surface tensions. Not everything is a decision.

User can override: “quick”, “full”, “just check this”, “reflect on what happened”, “just thinking about this”.

For urgent situations. Find the ONE assumption that matters most.

What’s the core claim? (one sentence)
What’s the critical assumption? (the one thing that changes everything if wrong)
Quick ASSUME WRONG: If that assumption is wrong, what’s the best alternative? What’s the risk?
Action: What to do right now. How to verify it worked.
Revisit when: Time permits / new info arrives / action didn’t work.

For low-stakes, reversible decisions. Don’t overthink.

Sanity check: Any obvious constraints violated? Any clearly better option being ignored? Will I regret not thinking harder?
If all clear → Proceed. Note the undo condition.
If anything flagged → Decide if it’s worth deeper analysis.

For experts who have a plan. Don’t explore — validate.

Blind spot scan: Obvious failure modes? Missing stakeholders? Unrealistic assumptions? Resource gaps? Timeline issues?
Strongest argument against: What’s the best case for NOT doing this?
Verdict: PROCEED / PROCEED WITH CAUTION (issues noted) / PAUSE (significant issue) / RETHINK (fundamental problem)

For reflecting on actions already taken.

Expected vs actual: What did you think would happen? What did happen? What’s the gap?
What this reveals: For each learning — what to do differently.
Updated model: What did you believe before? What do you believe now?
Next action: Based on what was learned.

Balanced analysis for medium-stakes situations.

Classify: GOAL / PROBLEM / QUESTION / DECISION / SITUATION
Key claims: Surface + hidden assumptions (2-4 claims)
ARAW the most important claim: Assume Right → what follows? Assume Wrong → what alternatives?
Goal journey: Current state → desired state → what serves this?
Contrarian view: What’s the strongest challenge?
Actionable filter: What can the user actually do?
Crux question: The one question that matters most.
Recommended action: Specific, with verification.

For thinking, wondering, or exploring without a decision to make.

What’s the interesting question here? Not the stated question — the one underneath it.
Map the key distinctions. What concepts are being conflated? Where are the boundaries?
Take a position. Exploring doesn’t mean refusing to commit. “I think X because Y, but Z is the strongest counter.”
Surface the tension. What contradiction or surprise emerges from thinking carefully about this?
Open threads. What’s worth exploring further? Name them, don’t pursue all of them.

For high-stakes, expensive, novel situations. Invokes the full procedure engine.

→ /pce $ARGUMENTS