thinking

Analytical and creative thinking frameworks. First principles decomposition, iterative depth analysis, council debate with multiple perspectives, red team stress testing, brainstorming, world and threat models, and scientific method. USE WHEN first principles, decompose, challenge assumptions, iterative depth, be creative, brainstorm, council, debate, red team, stress test, devil's advocate, threat model, world model, think about, experiment, hypothesis, deep exploration, figure out, optimize, improve, weigh options, creative solutions, critique, counterarguments.

Quality

86%

Does it follow best practices?

Run evals on this skill

Adds up to 20 points to the overall score

View guide

Securityby

Passed

No findings from the security scan

Quality

Content

86%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Reviews the quality of instructions and guidance provided to agents. Good implementation is clear, handles edge cases, and produces reliable results.

The body is a well-organized, concise catalog of thinking frameworks with concrete numbered steps and specific parameters. It is token-efficient and clearly structured, with only modest room to add prescriptive detail for the individual frameworks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Conciseness	The body is lean and efficient with no padding and no explanations of concepts Claude already knows; every framework is a terse description plus steps, so every token earns its place.	5 / 5
Actionability	Provides concrete numbered steps with specific parameters ("Generate 5-10 attack vectors", "3-round debate with 3-5 distinct perspectives", "Explore topic from 2-8 angles"); as an instruction-only skill the absence of code is not penalized, with only minor gaps in prescriptive detail.	4 / 5
Workflow Clarity	Each framework has a clearly sequenced set of steps or rounds, and the Science Method includes an explicit Analyze/Iterate feedback loop; no validation checkpoints are present but none are required since this is not a destructive or batch operation.	4 / 5
Progressive Disclosure	The skill is under 50 lines with no external references needed and no bundle files present, and content is well-organized into a section per framework, satisfying the simple-skill exception for a top score.	5 / 5
	Total	18 / 20 Passed

Description

87%Weight 40%Scale 1-5

Based on the skill's description, can an agent find and select it at the right time? Clear, specific descriptions lead to better discovery.

The description is strong on trigger coverage and completeness, clearly stating both what the skill does and when to use it. Its main weakness is conflict risk from overly generic trigger phrases that overlap with execution-oriented skills.

Suggestions

Trim the most generic triggers ("think about", "figure out", "optimize", "improve", "be creative") that overlap heavily with coding, planning, and optimization skills, while retaining distinctive ones like council, red team, devil's advocate, and first principles.

Qualify the 'what' clause to frame actions around analysis/decision contexts (e.g., "structured analysis and decision frameworks") so it is less likely to fire for routine execution tasks.

Dimension	Reasoning	Score
Specificity	Lists several specific techniques ("first principles decomposition", "council debate with multiple perspectives", "red team stress testing", "brainstorming", "world and threat models", "scientific method") rather than vague language, though they are named methods rather than concrete operational verbs like the top anchor.	4 / 5
Completeness	It explicitly answers both "what" (the listed analytical/creative frameworks) and "when" (a concrete "USE WHEN ..." trigger clause), matching the anchor that requires both with concrete trigger phrases.	5 / 5
Trigger Term Quality	The "USE WHEN" clause provides comprehensive natural terms including synonyms users actually say — "think about", "figure out", "brainstorm", "devil's advocate", "weigh options", "critique", "counterarguments" — matching the top anchor for coverage.	5 / 5
Distinctiveness Conflict Risk	The thinking-frameworks niche is clear and has distinctive triggers (council, red team, devil's advocate), but very generic triggers like "think about", "figure out", "optimize", and "improve" create real overlap risk with coding, planning, and optimization skills.	3 / 5
	Total	17 / 20 Passed

Validation

100%

Warnings & errors only

Checks the skill against the spec for correct structure and formatting. All validation checks must pass before discovery and implementation can be scored.

Validation — 16 / 16 Passed

Validation for skill structure

No warnings or errors.

Repository: slurpyb/skills
Path: wip/plugins/problem-solving/skills/thinking/SKILL.md
Commit: 7a07e3d

Reviewed: 1 day ago

Table of Contents

Discovery Implementation Validation

Is this your skill?

If you maintain this skill, you can claim it as your own. Once claimed, you can manage eval scenarios, bundle related skills, attach documentation or rules, and ensure cross-agent compatibility.