11 reviewed practices. Same mechanism map for people and agents. Genuine safety rules outrank a reflection exercise.
Practice Finder
This finder is local-only; your selection is not submitted. It is navigation, not assessment.
No JavaScript? Browse below. If nothing fits, the correct practice-layer result is no_match, not an invented card.
Reviewed practices
General wellness and self-reflection only. Do not use these practices to override genuine safety measures, protective boundaries, accessibility aids, medication or professional instructions, urgent action, or qualified advice.
Test Your Prediction — Write one prediction, one safe observation, and one result.
Problem or Worry? — Classify one concern and either schedule one action or park it for review.
Spot the Safety Behavior — Identify one possible safety-seeking behavior; change nothing until real safety is clear.
Park and Return — Write it once and choose when you will review it.
Turn one anxious prediction into something observable, then compare it with what actually happens.
Action: Write one prediction, one safe observation, and one result.
Best used when
the feared outcome is specific enough to observe
a small ordinary-risk test or observation is available
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the action is irreversible or unusually high stakes
Reflection: What changed, if anything, about how certain you are?
Evidence and limitations
NICE social anxiety disorder guideline(guideline_supported) Supports structured CBT mechanisms including behavioral experiments and work with safety-seeking behaviors in social anxiety treatment. Does not establish: Does not validate each CBT Cards exercise as a treatment, nor show that reducing genuine safety measures is appropriate.
NHS thought record(authoritative_self_help) Supports separating situations, thoughts and evidence, then considering a more balanced or neutral view. Does not establish: Does not prove a feared interpretation false and is not a diagnostic instrument.
Problem or Worry?
Ask whether this concern has a practical next action or is mainly a future-focused what-if.
Action: Classify one concern and either schedule one action or park it for review.
Best used when
you can state the concern clearly enough to ask whether a practical action exists
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
you would use hypothetical to dismiss a concrete problem you could reasonably act on
Reflection: Did more thinking create a usable action, or another version of the same what-if?
Evidence and limitations
NHS problem solving(authoritative_self_help) Supports distinguishing practical problems that can be acted on from concerns that do not currently have a practical solution. Does not establish: Does not justify dismissing concrete risk, urgent problems, or concerns that need professional input.
NHS tackling your worries(authoritative_self_help) Supports a worry-tree distinction and setting aside worry for a planned review period. Does not establish: Does not show that all worry is unproductive or that postponement is suitable during genuine urgent risk.
Related / next
Often precedes:Park and Return — Classify whether action exists before postponing a non-urgent hypothetical worry.
Spot the Safety Behavior
Name one extra behavior used mainly to prevent anxiety or embarrassment, then check whether it is genuinely protective.
Action: Identify one possible safety-seeking behavior; change nothing until real safety is clear.
Best used when
the situation is objectively low risk
the behavior is not a genuine safety requirement
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
you are unsure whether the behavior is protective in the real world
Reflection: What did the behavior prevent you from learning?
Evidence and limitations
NICE social anxiety disorder guideline(guideline_supported) Supports structured CBT mechanisms including behavioral experiments and work with safety-seeking behaviors in social anxiety treatment. Does not establish: Does not validate each CBT Cards exercise as a treatment, nor show that reducing genuine safety measures is appropriate.
Related / next
Often precedes:Test Your Prediction — A non-essential safety behavior can reveal the prediction for a small experiment.
Park and Return
Capture the worry once, choose a later review point, and return to the current task without requiring the worry to disappear.
Action: Write it once and choose when you will review it.
Best used when
the concern is non-urgent
you can choose a realistic later review point
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
delaying action would materially worsen a concrete problem
Reflection: Did postponing create space, or was there a real action that should not have been delayed?
Evidence and limitations
NHS tackling your worries(authoritative_self_help) Supports a worry-tree distinction and setting aside worry for a planned review period. Does not establish: Does not show that all worry is unproductive or that postponement is suitable during genuine urgent risk.
Related / next
Follow up with:Problem or Worry? — At review, decide whether the concern now has an actionable step.
Reflection or Replay?
Check whether another minute of analysis is producing a new fact, decision, or action. If not, end the review deliberately.
Action: Ask: what new information did the last round produce?
Best used when
you have already identified the main facts and any usable lesson
the loop is non-urgent
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
you are still missing information needed for a concrete decision or accountability step
Reflection: Did stopping avoid a real task, or simply stop repetition?
Evidence and limitations
NHS tackling your worries(authoritative_self_help) Supports a worry-tree distinction and setting aside worry for a planned review period. Does not establish: Does not show that all worry is unproductive or that postponement is suitable during genuine urgent risk.
CBT Cards low-risk editorial synthesis(practical_editorial) Allows a small reflection format when it transparently recombines reviewed CBT mechanisms without claiming that the exact card format has independent efficacy evidence. Does not establish: Does not establish clinical efficacy, suitability for an individual, or equivalence to therapist-delivered CBT.
Related / next
Alternative when:Park and Return — If the loop is future-focused worry rather than replay, scheduled review may fit better.
One Less Check
In a low-risk situation, choose one clearly non-essential check or reassurance request to skip and observe the uncertainty without replacing it.
Action: Skip one clearly non-essential check in an ordinary low-risk situation.
Best used when
the situation is ordinary and objectively low risk
the extra check is non-essential and not required
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the check prevents a plausible material harm
Reflection: What happened to the outcome, and what happened to the urge for certainty?
Evidence and limitations
CBT Cards low-risk editorial synthesis(practical_editorial) Allows a small reflection format when it transparently recombines reviewed CBT mechanisms without claiming that the exact card format has independent efficacy evidence. Does not establish: Does not establish clinical efficacy, suitability for an individual, or equivalence to therapist-delivered CBT.
Related / next
Pairs with:Test Your Prediction — Skipping one clearly non-essential check can be framed as a bounded prediction test.
The Smallest Approach Step
Shrink a safe avoided task until you can approach one observable part without making completion the goal.
Action: Take one safe approach step small enough to finish now.
Best used when
the task is genuinely safe
a smaller first step can be defined
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
avoidance is serving a legitimate protective boundary or recovery need
Reflection: What did you learn from approaching that planning alone could not show?
Evidence and limitations
NICE social anxiety disorder guideline(guideline_supported) Supports structured CBT mechanisms including behavioral experiments and work with safety-seeking behaviors in social anxiety treatment. Does not establish: Does not validate each CBT Cards exercise as a treatment, nor show that reducing genuine safety measures is appropriate.
NHS facing your fears(authoritative_self_help) Supports gradual, manageable approach to feared situations rather than trying to remove all fear at once. Does not establish: Does not support approaching genuinely dangerous situations or overriding protective boundaries.
Related / next
Pairs with:Test Your Prediction — A graded approach can supply a small observable test.
Set the Good-Enough Contract
Define the minimum fit-for-purpose criteria before the next round of work, then stop when those criteria are met unless new evidence appears.
Action: Write three completion criteria before doing another pass.
Best used when
the task has discretionary quality rather than a mandated exact standard
you can define fit-for-purpose criteria before more checking
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the work has a legitimately strict safety, compliance, accuracy, or professional standard
Reflection: Did extra work improve the required outcome or mainly reduce discomfort about stopping?
Evidence and limitations
Centre for Clinical Interventions — Perfectionism resources(clinical_resource) Provides CBT-oriented psychoeducation and exercises for unhelpful perfectionism, rigid standards and self-evaluation. Does not establish: Does not imply that high standards are inherently unhealthy or that professional requirements should be relaxed.
Alternative when:The Smallest Approach Step — If starting itself is the barrier, use a smaller approach step.
Use a Continuum, Not a Verdict
Replace a total success/failure verdict with a 0–10 description of specific dimensions.
Action: Rate one result on two specific dimensions instead of success/failure.
Best used when
you are evaluating quality, progress, or performance that can reasonably vary by degree
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the situation truly has a binary safety/compliance requirement
Reflection: What becomes visible when the result is not forced into one total verdict?
Evidence and limitations
NHS thought record(authoritative_self_help) Supports separating situations, thoughts and evidence, then considering a more balanced or neutral view. Does not establish: Does not prove a feared interpretation false and is not a diagnostic instrument.
Centre for Clinical Interventions — Perfectionism resources(clinical_resource) Provides CBT-oriented psychoeducation and exercises for unhelpful perfectionism, rigid standards and self-evaluation. Does not establish: Does not imply that high standards are inherently unhealthy or that professional requirements should be relaxed.
Translate a global label about yourself into a specific, reviewable description of what happened and what can change.
Action: Turn one identity label into one specific behavior statement.
Best used when
a specific behavior, choice, or skill can be named
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the reframing would erase responsibility or harm that needs repair
Reflection: Does the specific version preserve responsibility while making change more possible?
Evidence and limitations
NHS thought record(authoritative_self_help) Supports separating situations, thoughts and evidence, then considering a more balanced or neutral view. Does not establish: Does not prove a feared interpretation false and is not a diagnostic instrument.
CBT Cards low-risk editorial synthesis(practical_editorial) Allows a small reflection format when it transparently recombines reviewed CBT mechanisms without claiming that the exact card format has independent efficacy evidence. Does not establish: Does not establish clinical efficacy, suitability for an individual, or equivalence to therapist-delivered CBT.
Related / next
Follow up with:Run the Same-Standard Check — Once criticism is specific, compare whether the rule is harsher only because it applies to you.
Run the Same-Standard Check
Compare the standard you use for yourself with the standard you would use for another person in the same role and circumstances.
Action: Write the self-rule and same-situation rule for someone else.
Best used when
the comparison person is in genuinely similar circumstances
you want to test whether the rule changes only because it is you
Avoid when
genuine danger or urgent safety issue
required safety, professional, legal, or accessibility rule
medical, legal, financial, or safeguarding decision
the roles, duties, risks, or prior commitments are materially different
Reflection: Is the difference explained by real responsibility or only by who is judged?
Evidence and limitations
Centre for Clinical Interventions — Perfectionism resources(clinical_resource) Provides CBT-oriented psychoeducation and exercises for unhelpful perfectionism, rigid standards and self-evaluation. Does not establish: Does not imply that high standards are inherently unhealthy or that professional requirements should be relaxed.
NHS thought record(authoritative_self_help) Supports separating situations, thoughts and evidence, then considering a more balanced or neutral view. Does not establish: Does not prove a feared interpretation false and is not a diagnostic instrument.
Evidence and editorial method
Reviewed means claim scope, sources and safety boundaries were checked for public use. It does not mean the short card format has independent efficacy evidence or that it suits an individual. Evidence may be guideline-supported, authoritative self-help, clinical-resource, or practical editorial synthesis. No numeric truth score is used. Metaphors are memory aids, not evidence.
Each practice above exposes the same best used when, avoid when, evidence-provenance and reviewed relation data that agents receive. Source limitations are shown alongside evidence so a citation is not mistaken for validation of the exact card format.
Do not use this layer to override genuine danger, protective boundaries, accessibility aids, medication/professional instructions, required safety checks, or medical/legal/financial/safeguarding decisions. Agents return no_match in those cases.
CBT Cards
