# Map Past Experience to New Problems

Teams often overfit old playbooks or ignore useful prior experience when entering new situations. This skill guides Claude, Codex, and Claude Code through structured analogy, context mapping, and adapted action plans.

## Install

```bash
npx skillstore add bellabe/reasoning-analogical
```

## Metadata

- - Slug: bellabe-reasoning-analogical
- - Version: 1.0.0
- - Author: BellaBe
- - GitHub username: BellaBe
- - License: MIT
- - Repository: https://github.com/BellaBe/lean-os/tree/main/.claude/skills/reasoning-analogical
- - Ref: main
- - Supported tools: Claude, Codex, Claude Code
- - Risk level: safe
- - Quality score: 81
- - Quality tier: silver
- - Public page: https://skillstore.pages.dev/skills/bellabe-reasoning-analogical
- - Manifest: https://skillstore.pages.dev/api/skills/bellabe-reasoning-analogical/manifest

## Capabilities

- Selects relevant source cases using similarity, outcome quality, recency, and context overlap.
- Maps objects, relations, mechanisms, constraints, and success factors across domains.
- Separates preserved, modified, broken, and new elements in the target context.
- Builds adapted execution plans with phases, timeline, milestones, confidence, and uncertainty.
- Applies quality gates for source quality, mapping coverage, specificity, and confidence.

## Use Cases

- Plan a Market Entry: Compare a successful prior launch with a new market and adapt the acquisition, activation, and retention plan.
- Adapt a Product Playbook: Translate product lessons from one customer segment into a new segment while marking what breaks or changes.
- Review Strategic Assumptions: Expose where a team is copying past success too directly and identify context differences that need new work.

## Prompt Templates

### Find a Useful Analogy

```
Use analogical reasoning for this new situation: [target]. Consider these past cases: [sources]. Select the best source and explain why.
```

### Map Source to Target

```
Map this source case to my target context. Identify objects, relations, mechanisms, constraints, preserved elements, modified elements, and broken elements.
```

### Adapt a Launch Plan

```
Use the analogical reasoning process to adapt this proven playbook to a new context. Include context differences, execution phases, timeline, confidence, and uncertainty.
```

### Stress Test the Analogy

```
Critique this analogy before I use it for planning. Find surface similarities, over-transfer risks, missing adaptations, weak source evidence, and assumptions that need testing.
```

## Limitations

- It depends on accurate source cases and documented outcomes from the user or workspace.
- It does not verify market facts, metrics, or platform capabilities by itself.
- It can produce weak recommendations when source and target structures are only superficially similar.
- It is a reasoning framework, not an execution engine or automated research tool.

## Best Practices

- Provide at least two candidate source cases with outcomes and metrics.
- Ask for preserved, modified, broken, and new elements before asking for a plan.
- Use the confidence and uncertainty sections to decide what needs validation next.

## Anti Patterns

- Do not use surface similarity alone as proof that a playbook transfers.
- Do not skip context differences when source and target look familiar.
- Do not treat the adapted plan as validated market evidence.

## Security Audit

- - Safe to publish: true
- - Audited at: 2026-06-28T15:03:56.676\+00:00
- - Summary: Static analysis reported external command, weak cryptography, and reconnaissance patterns, but review found no executable code or malicious behavior. The hits are false positives from Markdown code fences, sample YAML, type-signature notation, and ordinary prose in SKILL.md.

## Stats

- - Views: 227
- - Downloads: 3
- - Favorites: 0
- - Popularity score: 0