think: Скилл для глубокого анализа и ответов

--- 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