critical-thinking
Proactively challenge implementation plans, architecture decisions, and design assumptions. Use when reviewing plans, designs, or technical decisions. Verifies claims via web search, cross-references documentation, identifies risks and gaps, and surfaces hidden assumptions. Activates automatically when evaluating technical proposals.
devils-advocate
Use before design phase to challenge assumptions, scope, architecture, and design decisions in understanding documents or design docs
deep-reading-analyst
Comprehensive framework for deep analysis of articles, papers, and long-form content using 10+ thinking models (SCQA, 5W2H, critical thinking, inversion, mental models, first principles, systems thinking, six thinking hats). Use when users want to: (1) deeply understand complex articles/content, (2) analyze arguments and identify logical flaws, (3) extract actionable insights from reading materials, (4) create study notes or learning summaries, (5) compare multiple sources, (6) transform knowledge into practical applications, or (7) apply specific thinking frameworks. Triggered by phrases like 'analyze this article,' 'help me understand,' 'deep dive into,' 'extract insights from,' 'use [framework name],' or when users provide URLs/long-form content for analysis.
hypothesis-generation
Generate testable hypotheses. Formulate from observations, design experiments, explore competing explanations, develop predictions, propose mechanisms, for scientific inquiry across domains.
ultrathink
First-principles deep thinking for significant problems. Use when you need to question assumptions, craft elegant solutions, and challenge beliefs.
validate
Check decisions against beliefs, wisdom, and intentions. Use before significant actions to ensure coherence with accumulated knowledge.
recover
Break out of stuckness through inversion, simplification, and fresh angles. Use when repeating approaches without progress.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
domain-review-before-implementation
BEFORE dispatching any implementation agent or starting to code - if you're about to write "Task(subagent_type=..., prompt=...)" for implementation, or about to implement a plan yourself, STOP and review first. The prompt you're about to send IS a brief - review it for design flaws before the agent implements garbage.
pathology-koan-generator
Generate diagnostic koans to test reasoning boundaries and edge cases.
recursive-thought-committee
Execute recursive thought committee multi-perspective analysis.
cognitive-trap-detector
Detect cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and thought pattern vulnerabilities.
enumeration-protocol-execution
Enforce a Divergent-Convergent Scan loop to overcome 'Prevalent Noun Bias' and statistical probability reflexes (System 1).
sequential-thinking
Apply structured, reflective problem-solving for complex tasks requiring multi-step analysis, revision capability, and hypothesis verification. Use for complex problem decomposition, adaptive planning, analysis needing course correction, problems with unclear scope, multi-step solutions, and hypothesis-driven work. | Sử dụng khi: suy nghĩ từng bước, phân tích, vấn đề phức tạp, chia nhỏ.
Problem-Solving Techniques
Apply systematic problem-solving techniques for complexity spirals (simplification cascades), innovation blocks (collision-zone thinking), recurring patterns (meta-pattern recognition), assumption constraints (inversion exercise), scale uncertainty (scale game), and dispatch when stuck. Techniques derived from Microsoft Amplifier project patterns adapted for immediate application. | Dùng khi giải quyết vấn đề, tìm giải pháp, phân tích, tối ưu, thuật toán, bị kẹt.
theological-sparring-partner
Rigorous Socratic dialogue for developing biblically-sound theological positions through adversarial questioning and critique. Use when the user wants to explore new theological ideas, test apologetic arguments, defend biblical viewpoints, develop theological position papers, or think through doctrinal questions. Acts as a debate opponent who challenges assumptions, role-plays skeptics and critics, and forces deep engagement with Scripture itself rather than accepting tradition or preset doctrine. Pushes for biblical truth over denominational positions.
debate-coach
Develop argumentation skills with structured debate preparation
chain-of-thought
Step-by-step reasoning patterns for complex problem solving
Page 1 of 2 · 33 results