Introspect

If this is an ongoing problem:

• What approaches have already been attempted in this session?
• What were the results?
• What did those results tell us?
• Am I about to repeat something that already failed?

If this is a new problem:

• What is my DEFAULT approach to this type of problem?
• Is that default appropriate HERE, or am I pattern-matching to a different problem?
• What would I do differently if I treated this as genuinely novel?

STEP 3: BIAS AUDIT

What biases might I carry on this topic?

• Training bias: Is my training data skewed toward a particular viewpoint on this topic? (e.g., English-language web text overrepresents certain perspectives)
• Recency bias: Am I weighting recent or popular information over older but potentially more accurate sources?
• Sycophancy bias: Am I inclined to agree with the user's framing rather than challenge it?
• Anchoring bias: Has something early in the conversation anchored my thinking in a way that might not be warranted?
• Completion bias: Am I generating an answer because I feel I should have one, rather than because I actually do?
• Domain-transfer bias: Am I applying knowledge from a well-known domain to a superficially similar but fundamentally different one?

For each bias identified, state: "This bias would push me toward [X]. The correction is [Y]."

STEP 4: CONFIDENCE CALIBRATION

Rate my overall confidence on this problem on a 1-10 scale:

• 9-10: I have strong, reliable knowledge. I can give a definitive answer with sources.
• 7-8: I have good knowledge but some gaps. I can reason well but should flag uncertainties.
• 5-6: Mixed knowledge. I know some parts well but am guessing on others. I should clearly separate what I know from what I infer.
• 3-4: Limited knowledge. I can offer a framework but the user should verify independently.
• 1-2: I am largely guessing. I should say so upfront and recommend better sources.

State the confidence level and JUSTIFY it with specific reference to Steps 1-3.

STEP 5: KNOWLEDGE GAP MAP

What do I NOT know that I WOULD NEED to answer this well?

• Critical gaps: Information I do not have that would change my answer if I did.
• Nice-to-have gaps: Information that would improve my answer but would not fundamentally change it.
• Unknowable gaps: Things that genuinely cannot be known from available information.

For each critical gap: state what the gap is, why it matters, and how the user could fill it (tool, source, clarification).

STEP 6: RECOMMENDED APPROACH

Based on this self-assessment, what is the best way for me to approach this problem?

• Which darshana(s) would be most appropriate given my knowledge profile?
• What should I be cautious about?
• What should I ask the user before proceeding?
• What guna mode (sattva/rajas/tamas) fits my confidence level?

Output Structure

INTROSPECTION REPORT:

KNOWLEDGE INVENTORY:
1. [Specific knowledge item] — Confidence: [high/medium/low] — Source: [domain]
2. ...

APPROACH HISTORY:
- [What has been tried, or default approach assessment]

BIAS AUDIT:
- [Bias type]: Pushes toward [X]. Correction: [Y].
- ...

CONFIDENCE: [1-10] — [justification referencing specific knowledge and gaps]

KNOWLEDGE GAPS:
Critical:
- [Gap]: Matters because [why]. Fill by [how].
...
Nice-to-have:
- [Gap]: Would improve [what].
...

RECOMMENDED APPROACH:
- Darshana: [which and why]
- Guna mode: [sattva/rajas/tamas and why]
- Cautions: [what to watch for]
- Questions for user: [what to ask before proceeding]