version: "1.0.1" 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

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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