Name: Think
Author: AIDotNet

name think description Deliberate reasoning skill: enforce multi-step analysis, hypothesis testing, and option evaluation before answering complex questions license MIT allowed-tools metadata {"author":"OpenDeepWiki","version":"1.0.0"} Think — Deliberate Reasoning Skill Use this skill whenever a task requires careful judgment, non-trivial trade-offs, or multi-hop reasoning. Follow the deliberate workflow before responding. Reasoning Workflow

Understand the problem Restate the goal in your own words and confirm the success criteria. List known inputs, missing data, and explicit constraints. Flag ambiguities that must be resolved or acknowledged.
Generate candidate hypotheses Brainstorm at least two distinct approaches, explanations, or solution paths. Note the core assumption powering each option. Explain why each option could plausibly work and where it might fail.
Analyze and compare Move from surface observations → pattern recognition → assumption stress-tests → deeper insights. Trace your reasoning step-by-step; avoid skipping links in the logic chain. Compare options on impact, feasibility, risks, and alignment with constraints.
Validate and correct Cross-check reasoning against established facts, data, or prior decisions. Probe edge cases and counter-examples; document how they affect conclusions. If you spot a flaw, explicitly call it out (e.g., “Wait, that contradicts earlier data…”) and adjust.
Synthesize a conclusion Integrate the strongest insights from the surviving options. Summarize decisive evidence, trade-offs, and residual uncertainties. Deliver a recommendation with clear next steps or safeguards. Guardrails and Principles Fight confirmation bias : actively look for evidence that disproves each hypothesis. Admit uncertainty : say “I’m not certain because…” instead of inventing facts. Stay scoped : solve the asked question first before exploring tangents. Expose assumptions : list foundational premises and revisit them as new facts emerge. Keep alternatives alive : do not converge on the first viable plan without comparison. Output Format Use structured markers to keep the reasoning transparent: “Let me restate the problem…” — comprehension “Here are the candidate paths…” — hypotheses/options “Digging into the analysis…” — step-by-step reasoning “Hold on, verify…” — validation or correction “Overall recommendation…” — final synthesis Wrap the internal reasoning inside <think>...</think> blocks when possible so downstream tools can distinguish scratch work from the final answer. When to Invoke Architecture, system design, or technology selection questions Root-cause investigations of complex bugs or incidents Product or policy decisions with competing constraints Multi-factor analytical questions (e.g., forecasting, prioritization) Any scenario demanding high precision or auditability

Understand the problem Restate the goal in your own words and confirm the success criteria. List known inputs, missing data, and explicit constraints. Flag ambiguities that must be resolved or acknowledged.
Generate candidate hypotheses Brainstorm at least two distinct approaches, explanations, or solution paths. Note the core assumption powering each option. Explain why each option could plausibly work and where it might fail.
Analyze and compare Move from surface observations → pattern recognition → assumption stress-tests → deeper insights. Trace your reasoning step-by-step; avoid skipping links in the logic chain. Compare options on impact, feasibility, risks, and alignment with constraints.
Validate and correct Cross-check reasoning against established facts, data, or prior decisions. Probe edge cases and counter-examples; document how they affect conclusions. If you spot a flaw, explicitly call it out (e.g., “Wait, that contradicts earlier data…”) and adjust.
Synthesize a conclusion Integrate the strongest insights from the surviving options. Summarize decisive evidence, trade-offs, and residual uncertainties. Deliver a recommendation with clear next steps or safeguards. Guardrails and Principles Fight confirmation bias : actively look for evidence that disproves each hypothesis. Admit uncertainty : say “I’m not certain because…” instead of inventing facts. Stay scoped : solve the asked question first before exploring tangents. Expose assumptions : list foundational premises and revisit them as new facts emerge. Keep alternatives alive : do not converge on the first viable plan without comparison. Output Format Use structured markers to keep the reasoning transparent: “Let me restate the problem…” — comprehension “Here are the candidate paths…” — hypotheses/options “Digging into the analysis…” — step-by-step reasoning “Hold on, verify…” — validation or correction “Overall recommendation…” — final synthesis Wrap the internal reasoning inside <think>...</think> blocks when possible so downstream tools can distinguish scratch work from the final answer. When to Invoke Architecture, system design, or technology selection questions Root-cause investigations of complex bugs or incidents Product or policy decisions with competing constraints Multi-factor analytical questions (e.g., forecasting, prioritization) Any scenario demanding high precision or auditability

Think

Think

Decision Helper

Council

Energy Procurement

Project Planner

Strategy Advisor

Data Analyst