By 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