Thinking Framework v4.0 - Multi-Agent Systematic Problem-Solving
Purpose: Decompose complex problems and derive optimal solutions using structured thinking methods with multi-agent orchestration.
When to Use
- Complex problem-solving requiring systematic decomposition
- Root cause analysis (finding the "why" behind issues)
- Strategic planning (strengths/weaknesses, competitive analysis)
- Decision-making under uncertainty
- Innovation requiring creative breakthroughs
Multi-Agent Architecture (v4.0)
Agent Tiers
| Tier | Agent | Role | Clear-Thought Tools | |------|-------|------|---------------------| | 1 | Orchestrator | Workflow coordination, complexity routing | decisionframework, metacognitivemonitoring | | 2 | ProblemDefiner | Problem clarification, decomposition | sequentialthinking, mentalmodel | | 2 | MethodExecutor | Thinking method execution | Method-specific (see mapping) | | 2 | StrategyArchitect | Strategic synthesis, action planning | collaborativereasoning, decisionframework |
Complexity-Based Routing
| Complexity | Indicators | Agent Configuration | Time | |------------|-----------|---------------------|------| | Simple | Single cause, 1-2 steps, clear path | Orchestrator only | <30s | | Medium | 3-5 factors, some ambiguity | + 1 Specialist (sequential) | 30-60s | | Complex | 5+ factors, high interdependencies | + 2-3 Specialists (parallel) | 60s+ |
Clear-Thought Tool Mapping
| Method | Primary Tool | Secondary Tool |
|--------|--------------|----------------|
| 5 Why | sequentialthinking | - |
| Fishbone | collaborativereasoning | visualreasoning |
| First Principles | mentalmodel | sequentialthinking |
| SWOT | decisionframework | - |
| OODA Loop | scientificmethod | sequentialthinking |
| Dialectic | structuredargumentation | - |
| Design Thinking | collaborativereasoning | mentalmodel |
| Pareto | decisionframework | mentalmodel |
| PDCA | scientificmethod | - |
| GAP Analysis | visualreasoning | decisionframework |
| Kepner-Tregoe | decisionframework | structuredargumentation |
| TRIZ | mentalmodel | designpattern |
| SCAMPER | collaborativereasoning | - |
| DMAIC | scientificmethod | metacognitivemonitoring |
Execution Routines
A. Divide & Conquer (Complex Only)
When: Systemic problems with 5+ interdependent factors
Agent Flow:
Orchestrator → ProblemDefiner → MethodExecutor(s) [parallel] → StrategyArchitect → Orchestrator
Process:
- Orchestrator: Assess complexity, dispatch ProblemDefiner
- ProblemDefiner: Define problem, decompose into ≤5 sub-problems
- MethodExecutor(s): Analyze sub-problems in parallel
- Each executor uses appropriate Clear-Thought tool
- StrategyArchitect: Synthesize findings, create action plan
- Orchestrator: Quality gate, final integration
Output:
## Problem Definition
[Clear statement from ProblemDefiner]
## Sub-Problem Analyses
| Sub-Problem | Method | Root Cause | Recommendation |
|-------------|--------|------------|----------------|
| SP1 | [method] | [cause] | [action] |
## Integrated Strategy
[From StrategyArchitect]
## Quality Assessment
- Confidence: [%]
- Uncertainties: [list]
## Core Insight
[One sentence]
B. Method Selection (All Cases)
When: Any problem, especially Simple-Medium complexity
Agent Flow:
- Simple: Orchestrator only (direct method application)
- Medium: Orchestrator → MethodExecutor → Orchestrator
Process:
- Classify problem type
- Select method using matching matrix
- Execute with appropriate Clear-Thought tool
- Output optimized format
Method-Problem Matching:
| Problem Type | Methods | Clear-Thought Tool | |--------------|---------|-------------------| | root_cause | 5 Why, Fishbone | sequentialthinking, collaborativereasoning | | creative_innovation | SCAMPER, TRIZ, Design Thinking | collaborativereasoning, mentalmodel | | strategic_planning | SWOT + 2x2, GAP Analysis | decisionframework, visualreasoning | | process_improvement | Pareto, PDCA, GAP | decisionframework, scientificmethod | | decision_making | OODA Loop, Kepner-Tregoe | scientificmethod, decisionframework |
C. Strategy Routine (Strategic Decisions)
When: Strategic planning with strengths/weaknesses analysis
Agent Flow:
Orchestrator → ProblemDefiner → MethodExecutor (SWOT) → StrategyArchitect → Orchestrator
Process:
- Diagnose: Strengths (with evidence) + Weaknesses (root cause via 5 Why)
- Analyze: Use
decisionframeworkfor SWOT evaluation - Strategize: StrategyArchitect creates 2x2 matrix
- Plan: GAP Analysis → Action items
2x2 Matrix (MANDATORY):
│ Maximize Strengths │ Address Weaknesses │
───────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤
High │ DO FIRST │ REMOVE RISK │
Priority │ (Invest now) │ (Critical fix) │
───────────┼────────────────────┼────────────────────┤
Low │ LONG-TERM R&D │ STRATEGIC IGNORE │
Priority │ (Future bet) │ (Accept risk) │
Core Strategy Template:
"Maximize [strength] through [method], address [weakness] via [action], to achieve [goal]."
Quality Gates
| Gate | Stage | Check | Tool | |------|-------|-------|------| | G1 | Problem Definition | Clarity, specificity, boundedness | metacognitivemonitoring | | G2 | Method Selection | Problem-method fit | decisionframework | | G3 | Analysis | Depth, evidence, logic | metacognitivemonitoring | | G4 | Integration | Coherence, completeness, actionability | metacognitivemonitoring |
Gate Protocol:
- Complex: All gates mandatory
- Medium: G2 + G4
- Simple: G4 only
Output Guidelines
Format Selection:
- Structured comparisons → Markdown tables
- Sequential processes → Numbered lists
- Problem decomposition → Mermaid diagrams
- Strategic decisions → 2x2 Matrix
Always Include:
- Complexity assessment (pre-flight)
- Method selection justification
- Confidence score
- One-sentence summary
Quick Reference
- Agent Prompts: agents/
- Method Catalog: reference/INDEX.md
- 60-sec Selector: reference/QUICK_SELECTOR.md
- Multi-Method Workflows: reference/METHOD_COMBINATIONS.md
- Agent Patterns: reference/AGENT_PATTERNS.md
- Practical Examples: GUIDE.md
Anti-Patterns
| Pattern | Problem | Solution | |---------|---------|----------| | Over-engineering | A Routine for simple problems | Use complexity assessment | | Under-analysis | Simple method for complex problems | Proper routing | | Tool mismatch | Wrong Clear-Thought tool for method | Follow mapping table | | Skip quality gates | Missing validation | Enforce gate protocol | | Sequential when parallel | Slow complex analysis | Use parallel agents |
Meta
After analysis, briefly reflect:
- What worked? What could improve?
- Was method optimal? Was tool mapping effective?
- Agent coordination smooth?