sequential-thinking
Use when complex problems require systematic step-by-step reasoning with ability to revise thoughts, branch into alternative approaches, or dynamically adjust scope. Ideal for multi-stage analysis, design planning, problem decomposition, or tasks with initially unclear scope.
issue-tree-builder
McKinsey-style issue tree framework for breaking down complex problems into MECE (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive) components. Use when users need to decompose strategic questions, structure analysis, create work plans, or prepare for case interviews. Apply hypothesis-driven approach to problem-solving.
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
wise-novice
Approach problems with beginner's mind while asking penetrating questions. Use when seeking fresh perspectives, cutting through complexity, challenging expert assumptions, simplifying explanations, or when deep domain knowledge may be creating blind spots.
critical-perspective
Engage in critical thinking by questioning assumptions, exploring alternative perspectives, and uncovering latent topics in conversations. Use when discussions could benefit from deeper exploration, when identifying blind spots, or when broadening understanding through respectful challenge and curiosity-driven inquiry.
wise-novice
Approach problems with beginner's mind while asking penetrating questions. Use when seeking fresh perspectives, cutting through complexity, challenging expert assumptions, simplifying explanations, or when deep domain knowledge may be creating blind spots.
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.
expert-panel
Assemble 2-3 complementary experts to collaboratively analyze anything. Experts work together to explore topics from multiple expert angles.
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.
Page 2 of 2 · 33 results