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