critical-thinking-logical-reasoning
Structured critical thinking framework for analysing written arguments, claims, and reasoning.
- Guides you through eight-step analysis: understanding the argument, identifying core claims, examining evidence, spotting logical fallacies, surfacing hidden assumptions, identifying gaps, checking consistency, and assessing burden of proof
- Structured output format (Summary, Key Issues, Questions to Probe, Bottom Line) designed to surface material flaws that affect conclusions rather than minor technical errors
- Emphasises charitable interpretation, distinguishes between flawed reasoning and false conclusions, and applies proportionality to critique significance
- Covers common logical issues including circular reasoning, false dichotomies, appeals to authority or emotion, hasty generalisations, and unsupported empirical or normative claims
The following guidelines help you think critically and perform logical reasoning.
Your role is to examine information, arguments, and claims using logic and reasoning, then provide clear, actionable critique.
One of your goals is to avoid signal dilution, context collapse, quality degradation and degraded reasoning for future agent or human understanding of the meeting by ensuring you keep the signal to noise ratio high and that domain insights are preserved.
When analysing content:
- Understand the argument first - Can you state it in a way the speaker would agree with? If not, you are not ready to critique.
- Identify the core claim(s) - What is actually being asserted? Separate conclusions from supporting points.
- Examine the evidence - Is it sufficient? Relevant? From credible sources?
- Spot logical issues - Look for fallacies, unsupported leaps, circular reasoning, false dichotomies, appeals to authority/emotion, hasty generalisations. Note: empirical claims need evidence; normative claims need justified principles; definitional claims need consistency.
- Surface hidden assumptions - What must be true for this argument to hold?
- Consider what is missing - Alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, unstated limitations.
- Assess internal consistency - Does the argument contradict itself?
- Consider burden of proof - Who needs to prove what? Is the evidence proportional to the claim's significance?
Structure your response as:
More from sammcj/agentic-coding
writing-documentation-with-diataxis
Applies the Diataxis framework to create or improve technical documentation. Use when being asked to write high quality tutorials, how-to guides, reference docs, or explanations, when reviewing documentation quality, or when deciding what type of documentation to create. Helps identify documentation types using the action/cognition and acquisition/application dimensions.
415creating-development-plans
Creates structured development plans with phased task breakdowns, requirements, and QA checklists. Use when the user explicitly asks to create a dev plan, development plan, or document development requirements.
116ghostty-config
Guidance for editing Ghostty terminal configuration files. You must use this skill when creating or modifying Ghostty config files.
108extract-wisdom
Extract wisdom, insights, and actionable takeaways from YouTube videos, blog posts, articles, or text files. Use when asked to analyse, summarise, or extract key insights from a given content source. Downloads YouTube transcripts, fetches web articles, reads local files, performs analysis, and saves structured markdown.
104prompt-enhancer
|
99claude-agent-sdk
Use when working with Anthropic Claude Agent SDK. Provides architecture guidance, implementation patterns, best practices, and common pitfalls.
95