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
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.
chain-of-thought
Step-by-step reasoning patterns for complex problem solving
hypotheticals-counterfactuals
Use when exploring alternative scenarios, testing assumptions through "what if" questions, understanding causal relationships, conducting pre-mortem analysis, stress testing decisions, or when user mentions counterfactuals, hypothetical scenarios, thought experiments, alternative futures, what-if analysis, or needs to challenge assumptions and explore possibilities.
layered-reasoning
Use when reasoning across multiple abstraction levels (strategic/tactical/operational), designing systems with hierarchical layers, explaining concepts at different depths, maintaining consistency between high-level principles and concrete implementation, or when users mention 30,000-foot view, layered thinking, abstraction levels, top-down design, or need to move fluidly between strategy and execution.
scout-mindset-bias-check
Use to detect and remove cognitive biases from reasoning. Invoke when prediction feels emotional, stuck at 50/50, or when you want to validate forecasting process. Use when user mentions scout mindset, soldier mindset, bias check, reversal test, scope sensitivity, or cognitive distortions.
socratic-teaching-scaffolds
Use when teaching complex concepts (technical, scientific, philosophical), helping learners discover insights through guided questioning rather than direct explanation, correcting misconceptions by revealing contradictions, onboarding new team members through scaffolded learning, mentoring through problem-solving question frameworks, designing self-paced learning materials, or when user mentions "teach me", "help me understand", "explain like I'm", "learning path", "guided discovery", or "Socratic method".
scientific-clarity-checker
Use when reviewing any scientific document for logical clarity, argument soundness, and scientific rigor. Invoke when user mentions check clarity, review logic, scientific soundness, hypothesis-data alignment, claims vs evidence, or needs a cross-cutting scientific logic review independent of document type.
dialectical-mapping-steelmanning
Use when debates are trapped in false dichotomies, polarized positions need charitable interpretation, tradeoffs are obscured by binary framing, synthesis beyond 'pick one side' is needed, or when users mention steelman arguments, thesis-antithesis-synthesis, Hegelian dialectic, third way solutions, or resolving seemingly opposed principles.
chain-roleplay-debate-synthesis
Use when facing decisions with multiple legitimate perspectives and inherent tensions. Invoke when stakeholders have competing priorities (growth vs. sustainability, speed vs. quality, innovation vs. risk), need to pressure-test ideas from different angles before committing, exploring tradeoffs between incompatible values, synthesizing conflicting expert opinions into coherent strategy, or surfacing assumptions that single-viewpoint analysis would miss.