--- name: moai-foundation-thinking description: > Unified thinking toolkit: Creative frameworks (Critical Evaluation, Diverge-Converge, Deep Questioning), First Principles reasoning (absorbed from moai-foundation-philosopher), and Adaptive Thinking via the `ultrathink` keyword. Use for ideation, strategic analysis, architecture decisions, and deep reasoning on complex problems. when_to_use: > Use for thinking and ideation: creative frameworks (critical evaluation, diverge-converge), first-principles reasoning, five-whys root-cause analysis, trade-off and architecture decisions, technology/library/database selection, and Adaptive Thinking via the ultrathink keyword. license: Apache-2.0 compatibility: Designed for Claude Code allowed-tools: Read, Grep, Glob user-invocable: false metadata: version: "2.0.0" category: "foundation" status: "active" updated: "2026-04-25" modularized: "true" tags: "foundation, critical-thinking, brainstorming, ideation, evaluation, creative-thinking, diverge-converge, first-principles, adaptive-thinking, philosophy, architecture-decision" related-skills: "moai-foundation-philosopher, moai-workflow-thinking" # MoAI Extension: Progressive Disclosure progressive_disclosure: enabled: true level1_tokens: 100 level2_tokens: 5000 --- # MoAI Foundation Thinking Structured thinking toolkit for creative problem-solving and rigorous analysis. Integrates three complementary frameworks that cover the full spectrum from idea generation to critical evaluation. Core Philosophy: Generate broadly, evaluate rigorously, question deeply. Creativity and criticism are complementary forces. ## Quick Reference What is the Thinking Toolkit? Three integrated frameworks for structured thinking: - Critical Evaluation: Rigorous 7-step analysis to assess proposals and detect flaws - Diverge-Converge: Systematic brainstorming from 20-50 raw ideas to 3-5 validated solutions - Deep Questioning: 6-layer progressive inquiry to uncover hidden requirements and risks When to Use Each Framework: - Evaluating a proposal or recommendation: Critical Evaluation - Generating solutions for an open-ended problem: Diverge-Converge - Exploring an unfamiliar domain or unclear requirement: Deep Questioning - Complex decisions: Combine all three (Question first, Generate second, Evaluate third) Quick Access: - Rigorous proposal assessment: [Critical Evaluation Module](modules/critical-evaluation.md) - Creative solution generation: [Diverge-Converge Module](modules/diverge-converge.md) - Progressive inquiry: [Deep Questioning Module](modules/deep-questioning.md) --- ## Implementation Guide ### Framework 1: Critical Evaluation Purpose: Systematically assess proposals, claims, and recommendations to detect flaws before commitment. Seven-Step Evaluation Process: Step 1 - Restate: Reformulate the claim or proposal in your own words. Ensures genuine understanding before critique. Step 2 - Assess Evidence: Examine supporting data. Is the evidence empirical, anecdotal, or assumed? What is the sample size and recency? Are there contradicting data points? Step 3 - Detect Fallacies: Check for common reasoning errors. Appeal to authority without substance. False dichotomy (only two options presented). Hasty generalization from insufficient examples. Straw man misrepresentation of alternatives. Step 4 - Expose Assumptions: Identify unstated premises. What must be true for this conclusion to hold? Which assumptions are testable? Which assumptions carry the highest risk if wrong? Step 5 - Note Alternatives: For every claim, ask what else could explain the evidence. Generate at least two alternative interpretations. Consider the null hypothesis. Step 6 - Check Contradictions: Look for internal inconsistencies. Do different parts of the proposal conflict? Are there contradictions with known facts or constraints? Step 7 - Evaluate Burden of Proof: Determine if the evidence is proportional to the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Identify what additional evidence would strengthen or weaken the case. Output Format: - Evaluation Summary: Overall assessment (Strong, Moderate, Weak, Flawed) - Key Strengths: What holds up under scrutiny - Critical Gaps: What needs more evidence or revision - Recommended Actions: Next steps to strengthen the proposal WHY: Uncritical acceptance of proposals leads to preventable failures. IMPACT: Structured evaluation catches 60-80% of flawed recommendations. ### Framework 2: Diverge-Converge Brainstorming Purpose: Generate a broad solution space then systematically narrow to the best options. Five-Phase Process: Phase 1 - Gather Requirements: Define the problem space clearly. Identify stakeholders and success criteria. Set explicit constraints (budget, timeline, technology). Document "must-have" vs "nice-to-have" criteria. Phase 2 - Diverge (Generate 20-50 Ideas): Quantity over quality during divergence. No criticism or filtering during generation. Include wild and unconventional ideas. Combine and build upon previous ideas. Use prompts: "What if we...", "How might we...", "What would happen if..." Phase 3 - Cluster (Group into 4-8 Themes): Identify natural groupings among ideas. Name each cluster with a descriptive theme. Note which clusters have the most ideas (signals interest). Identify gaps where no ideas exist (potential blind spots). Phase 4 - Converge (Score and Select): Rate each cluster against success criteria (1-10). Apply weighted scoring based on priority of criteria. Select top 3-5 candidates for deeper analysis. Document why rejected options were eliminated. Phase 5 - Document and Validate: Write up selected solutions with rationale. Define validation experiments for top candidates. Identify risks and mitigation strategies. Plan implementation sequence. Output Format: - Problem Statement: Clear definition of what we are solving - Idea Count: Total ideas generated and cluster distribution - Top Candidates: 3-5 selected solutions with scores - Validation Plan: How to test each candidate WHY: Premature convergence on the first idea leaves better solutions undiscovered. IMPACT: Teams using diverge-converge find 3x more viable solutions. ### Framework 3: Deep Questioning Purpose: Progressively uncover hidden requirements, constraints, and risks through layered inquiry. Six-Layer Progressive Inquiry: Layer 1 - Surface Understanding: What is the stated goal or request? What does success look like? What are the obvious inputs and outputs? Verify: Can I explain this to someone else clearly? Layer 2 - Problem Depth: Why does this problem exist? What is the root cause vs symptom? What has been tried before and why did it fail? What would happen if we did nothing? Layer 3 - Context and Constraints: What are the technical constraints? What are the organizational or process constraints? What are the time and resource limitations? What external dependencies exist? Layer 4 - User Perspective: Who are the actual end users? What is their current workflow? What pain points drive this request? What would they consider a disappointing solution? Layer 5 - Solution Exploration: What are the boundary conditions? What edge cases could break the solution? What are the performance requirements? How will this integrate with existing systems? Layer 6 - Validation and Risk: How will we know if the solution works? What could go wrong? What is the rollback strategy? What monitoring or alerting is needed? Progressive Depth Indicators: - Shallow: Only Layers 1-2 explored (common in quick tasks) - Moderate: Layers 1-4 explored (sufficient for most features) - Deep: All 6 layers explored (required for architecture decisions) - Exhaustive: All layers with multiple iterations (critical systems) Output Format: - Understanding Level: Shallow, Moderate, Deep, or Exhaustive - Key Discoveries: Insights from each explored layer - Open Questions: Remaining unknowns requiring further investigation - Risk Assessment: Identified risks by severity WHY: Surface-level understanding leads to solutions that miss the real problem. IMPACT: Deep questioning reduces requirement changes by 40-60%. --- ## Combined Workflow For complex problems, use all three frameworks in sequence: Step 1 - Deep Questioning: Explore the problem space (Layers 1-4 minimum) Step 2 - Diverge-Converge: Generate and select solutions based on discoveries Step 3 - Critical Evaluation: Rigorously assess the top candidates Decision Complexity Guide: Simple task (1-2 files): Skip thinking frameworks (direct implementation) Feature addition: Deep Questioning (Layers 1-3) + brief evaluation Design decision: Deep Questioning (full) + Diverge-Converge Architecture change: All three frameworks in full --- ## Integration with MoAI Workflow SPEC Phase (/moai plan): - Apply Deep Questioning during requirements gathering - Use Diverge-Converge for solution approach selection - Apply Critical Evaluation to finalize SPEC document Run Phase (/moai run): - Use Critical Evaluation when reviewing implementation options - Apply Deep Questioning when encountering unexpected complexity Agent Teams: - team-reader (analyst role): Primary user of Deep Questioning framework - team-reader (architect role): Primary user of Critical Evaluation framework - team-reader (researcher role): Uses all three for comprehensive analysis --- ## Works Well With Agents: - manager-spec: Combined with Philosopher for full decision framework (planning absorbs strategic analysis) - manager-develop: Deep Questioning + Critical Evaluation during run-phase reasoning (DDD/TDD root-cause analysis, architecture trade-offs) - super-advisor: E1-E4 escalation reasoning (bug-deadlock diagnosis, architecture decision points, second-opinion consultation, loop-deadlock verdicts) - team-reader (analyst role): Primary consumer for plan phase analysis - team-reader (researcher role): Comprehensive research methodology Skills: - moai-foundation-philosopher: Complementary (Philosopher = strategic decisions, Thinking = creative analysis) - moai-foundation-core: Integration with SPEC workflow - moai-workflow-spec: Requirement documentation support Commands: - /moai plan: Apply thinking frameworks during specification - /moai run: Reference during implementation decisions --- Module Deep Dives: - [Critical Evaluation](modules/critical-evaluation.md) - [Diverge-Converge](modules/diverge-converge.md) - [Deep Questioning](modules/deep-questioning.md) External Resources: [reference.md](references/reference.md) Origin: Integrated from critical-thinking, brainstorm-diverge-converge, and ideation frameworks ## Common Rationalizations | Rationalization | Reality | |---|---| | "Brainstorming is for creative tasks, not engineering" | Engineering decisions have design space too. Diverge phase surfaces solutions that linear thinking misses. | | "I already evaluated this critically, I do not need the framework" | Unstructured evaluation skips dimensions. The framework ensures completeness across all assessment axes. | | "Deep questioning slows down the process" | Shallow answers produce shallow solutions. Deep questions reveal constraints the specification missed. | | "Converging on the first good idea is efficient" | The first good idea is often a local optimum. Spending 5 minutes on alternatives can find a global optimum. | | "This decision is reversible, I do not need rigorous thinking" | Reversible decisions still cost time to reverse. Rigorous thinking upfront prevents the reversal. | ## Red Flags - Architecture decision documented with only one option considered - Diverge phase produced fewer than 3 alternatives - Converge phase selected an option without evaluation criteria - Critical evaluation missing feasibility or risk dimension - Deep questioning stopped after one level of "why" ## Verification - [ ] Diverge phase produced at least 3 distinct alternatives - [ ] Converge phase used explicit evaluation criteria to select - [ ] Critical evaluation covers feasibility, risk, and impact dimensions - [ ] Deep questioning reached at least 3 levels for the primary question - [ ] Selected approach references the alternatives it was compared against --- ## First Principles (absorbed from moai-foundation-philosopher) Five-phase strategic analysis framework for architecture decisions and technology selection. ### When to Use Use when facing decisions where the solution space is broad, trade-offs are non-obvious, or existing patterns may not apply. Particularly valuable for: architecture decisions, technology selection, breaking changes, performance vs maintainability trade-offs. ### Five-Phase Process Phase 1 — Assumption Audit: List every assumption underlying the current approach. Challenge each: is it empirically verified or conventionally accepted? Which assumptions carry the highest risk if wrong? Phase 2 — First Principles Decomposition: Strip away analogies and precedent. Break the problem into fundamental truths. Ask "What must be true for this to work?" rather than "What has worked before?" Phase 3 — Alternative Generation: From first principles, generate alternatives that ignore prior constraints. Aim for 5-10 distinct approaches before filtering. Include "absurd" alternatives — they often surface overlooked fundamentals. Phase 4 — Trade-off Analysis: Score each alternative across: correctness, performance, maintainability, operability, reversibility. Use explicit weights based on project context. Document which trade-offs are acceptable vs dealbreakers. Phase 5 — Cognitive Bias Check: Before finalizing, audit for: anchoring bias (overweighting the first option), confirmation bias (seeking evidence for the preferred option), sunk cost fallacy (keeping a bad choice due to investment). Full methodology in modules: [First Principles](modules/first-principles.md), [Assumption Matrix](modules/assumption-matrix.md), [Trade-off Analysis](modules/trade-off-analysis.md), [Cognitive Bias](modules/cognitive-bias.md) Examples and reference: [examples.md](references/philosopher-examples.md), [reference.md](references/philosopher-reference.md) --- ## Adaptive Thinking (Opus 4.7+ built-in, including Opus 5.5 and 4.8) The model's built-in reasoning mode (Opus 4.7 and later, including Opus 5.5 and 4.8) that dynamically allocates reasoning tokens based on task complexity. ### Reasoning Modes | Mode | Trigger | Mechanism | GLM Compatible? | |------|---------|-----------|-----------------| | `ultrathink` | Keyword | Claude native extended reasoning | YES | | Adaptive Thinking | Automatic | Opus 4.7+ built-in (incl. Opus 5.5 and 4.8) | YES | Rules: `ultrathink` → ALWAYS use Claude native extended reasoning with xhigh effort. ### When to Activate Architecture decisions affecting 3+ files, technology selection between options, breaking changes under consideration, performance vs maintainability trade-offs, complex problems with multiple viable approaches. On Opus 4.7+: Adaptive Thinking handles reasoning depth automatically — no fixed budget needed. The orchestrator activates deep reasoning by prepending the `ultrathink` keyword to the user prompt. ### Steering thinking down (optional) A large system prompt (loading AGENTS.md plus many rule files) can cause the model to think more than a routine turn warrants. To suppress over-triggered reasoning on simple turns, you may add a steer such as: "Thinking adds latency and should only be used when it will meaningfully improve answer quality — typically for problems that require multi-step reasoning. When in doubt, respond directly." The `ultrathink` keyword still overrides this to force deeper reasoning when needed. --- ## Backward Compatibility Marker Sequential Thinking MCP support retired in an earlier deep-reasoning consolidation. For deep reasoning use the `ultrathink` keyword (triggers Opus 4.7+ Adaptive Thinking). The earlier "Sequential Thinking MCP (absorbed from moai-workflow-thinking)" content is superseded; this skill's deep-reasoning path is consolidated onto ultrathink + the creative frameworks above.