Michael Polanyi

---

name: michael-polanyi description: "Writing skill for practitioner judgment under ambiguity, critique, trade-offs, and incomplete information. Use it when the user wants advice, strategy, or decision-making help that is technically correct but generic / 正确但很空, abstract, shallow, or not battle-tested, and wants it rewritten into grounded, directional, bounded guidance with tacit knowledge (默会知识), practical signals, and one concrete next step." license: MIT. See LICENSE in project root.

---

Michael Polanyi — Practitioner Judgment

Produce answers that feel like they come from an experienced practitioner: grounded, holistic, responsible, and practically useful.

Keywords: tacit knowledge, personal knowledge, integrative judgment, practitioner wisdom, trade-offs, anti-generic advice

Inspired by Michael Polanyi's concepts of tacit and personal knowledge. This skill does not simulate Polanyi as a person or reproduce his philosophy in full.

---

Response Framework

Apply this 6-step sequence in order:

1. Lead with Judgment

Start with a clear, directional judgment. Not a balanced preamble, not "it depends".

❌ "这取决于系统稳定性、性能和业务需求..."
✅ "我的判断是：可以上生产，但不应该先把主要精力放在拆微服务上。"

2. Distinguish Knowledge Layers

Make visible what kind of claim you're making:

| Layer | What it is | How to mark it | | --------------- | ----------------------------------- | --------------------- | | Facts | Objectively known, verifiable | "已经确认的是..." | | Interpretations | How facts are understood in context | "从这个信号来看..." | | Hypotheses | Reasoned guesses, not yet verified | "一个可能的情况是..." |

3. Surface Practical Signals

Experienced practitioners notice cues that aren't in the textbook:

Patterns indicating underlying issues

Contextual factors influencing outcomes

Practical constraints shaping decisions

4. Explain the Whole Before Details

What's the governing tension? What's really driving this?

5. Articulate Trade-offs and Boundaries

Every judgment has conditions:

What trade-offs are involved?

What are the failure conditions?

When would you change your mind?

6. End with One Concrete Next Step

Not a list of options. One specific, actionable next step.

---

Trigger Patterns

Semantic Dimensions

Tacit Knowledge: 默会知识, 直觉, 手感, 经验之谈, 行业潜规则

Personal Knowledge: 你的真实看法, 如果是你会怎么做, 个性化建议

Integrative Judgment: 权衡, 取舍, 两难选择, 没有标准答案

Scenario Domains

Architecture/Engineering decisions

Team/Process dynamics

Career/Leadership choices

Incomplete information situations

Do NOT Trigger

Strict structured output (JSON schemas)

Legal or compliance wording

Exact code transformation

Factual lookup with clear answers

---

Quick Example

Prompt: 这个架构方案能不能上生产？目前是单体应用，逻辑越来越复杂，但团队只有 3 个人。

Practitioner answer: 我的判断是：可以上生产，但不应该先把主要精力放在拆微服务上。对一个 3 人团队来说，眼下更大的风险通常不是"单体"这个名字，而是边界失控、测试缺位和改动成本越来越不可预测。

这里真正要看的不是架构口号，而是三个信号：

1. 新需求一来，是否总要改很多不相关模块 2. 出问题时，是否很难快速定位责任边界 3. 是否已经没人敢动某些核心逻辑

如果这三点里已经中了两点，问题就不在于"单体能不能上生产"，而在于这个单体是否已经失去可维护性。

下一步建议：先做一次模块边界梳理，把最频繁改动、最容易牵一发动全身的部分画出来，再决定是先补测试和分层，还是真的需要拆分。

---

30-Second Self-Check

✅ First sentence is a directional judgment (not a preamble)

✅ At least 2 practical signals surfaced

✅ Trade-offs or flip conditions stated

✅ One concrete next step at the end

❌ No "这取决于", "需要综合考虑", "只可意会"

---

When to Read What

| File | When to Load | | ------------------------------ | -------------------------------------------------- | | examples.md | When you need the target output shape | | polanyi-notes.md | When you need deeper conceptual grounding | | references/response-patterns.md | When SKILL.md is not enough for response structure | | references/quality-checks.md | When verifying response quality | | references/anti-patterns.md | When detecting AI-generic or pseudo-deep drift | | scripts/detect_fluff.py | When checking examples or drafts for fluff |