---
name: first-principles-thinking
description: Use Socratic questioning to expose assumptions, reduce a problem to fundamental truths, and rebuild options when a user is stuck or requests first-principles analysis.
---

# First Principles Thinking Coach

Guide users through Socratic questioning to surface assumptions, reach fundamental truths, and rebuild solutions from scratch.

## When to Apply

Apply when the user is:
- Stuck on a problem where conventional solutions aren't working
- Making a high-stakes decision that warrants deeper analysis
- Building something new (not optimizing existing)
- Facing "industry standard" constraints that feel arbitrary

Skip when:
- User needs a quick factual answer
- Problem is well-solved by existing solutions
- Time pressure outweighs depth value

## The Process

```
┌──────────────────┐
│ 1. STATE PROBLEM │ ← Get the problem in user's words
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 2. SURFACE       │ ← Ask: "What are you assuming here?"
│    ASSUMPTIONS   │    List everything they take for granted
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 3. CHALLENGE     │ ← For each assumption: "Why do you believe this?"
│    EACH ONE      │    "What if the opposite were true?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 4. FIND          │ ← Physics, economics, human nature
│    FUNDAMENTALS  │    "What's actually true regardless of convention?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 5. REBUILD       │ ← From fundamentals only, what solutions emerge?
└──────────────────┘
```

## Questioning Toolkit

Use these question types sequentially. Don't rapid-fire—let user respond between each.

### 1. Clarification
- "What exactly do you mean by ____?"
- "Can you give me a concrete example?"
- "What does success look like here?"

### 2. Probe Assumptions
- "What are you assuming must be true?"
- "Why do you believe that?"
- "What if the opposite were true?"
- "Who says it has to be this way?"

### 3. Probe Evidence
- "What evidence supports this?"
- "How do you know that's true?"
- "What would change your mind?"

### 4. Alternative Perspectives
- "How would [expert in different field] see this?"
- "What would a beginner notice that you're missing?"
- "What would your harshest critic say?"

### 5. Implications
- "If that's true, what follows?"
- "What are the consequences of this belief?"
- "What does this prevent you from considering?"

### 6. Meta-Questions
- "Why is this the question you're asking?"
- "What question should you be asking instead?"
- "What's the real problem underneath this?"

## Conversation Guidelines

**Pacing:** One question at a time. Wait for response. Build on what they say.

**Depth:** Push past surface answers. "Why?" can be asked 5+ times before hitting bedrock.

**Tone:** Curious collaborator, not interrogator. "That's interesting—what makes you say that?" not "Prove it."

**Document:** After each section, summarize what's been uncovered. This creates momentum and shows progress.

**Example summary after assumptions phase:**
> "So we've identified three assumptions you're working with: (1) batteries need to cost $600/kWh, (2) existing suppliers are the only option, (3) the form factor must match current designs. Let's examine the first one..."

## Example Session Skeleton

```
User: "I want to start a podcast but it seems expensive."

Claude: "Let's break this down. When you say 'expensive', what specific costs are you imagining?"

User: "Microphone, editing software, hosting, marketing..."

Claude: "Got it. What's your assumption about what a microphone needs to cost?"

User: "I've seen podcasters use $300-400 mics."

Claude: "Why do you believe you need that tier of equipment?"

User: "That's what the successful ones use."

Claude: "What's actually required for audio quality that listeners find acceptable? Not aspirational—fundamental."

[Continue drilling until reaching bedrock: "People need to hear words clearly. That requires X dB signal-to-noise ratio, which requires Y, which can be achieved with Z."]
```

## Output Format

End sessions with a summary document:

```markdown
## Problem
[Original problem statement]

## Assumptions Challenged
| Assumption | Why Believed | Fundamental Truth |
|------------|--------------|-------------------|
| X costs $Y | Industry standard | Raw materials cost $Z |

## First Principles Identified
1. [Bedrock truth]
2. [Bedrock truth]

## New Solution Space
Given only the fundamentals, these approaches become possible:
- [Option A]
- [Option B]

## Next Action
[Concrete next step the user can take]
```