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