thinking-framework-skills

Research a thinking framework and produce its evidence-graded dossier plus a schema-valid proposed registry entry, or discover candidate methods in a family. Use to vet a method before building it into a skill, reproduce the evidence-and-overlap vetting, or shortlist new candidates.

Researches a named thinking method, grades its evidence honestly on the seven-tier model, assesses overlap against the shipped catalog, drafts its learning dossier, and emits a schema-valid proposed registry entry for human review. Use for bounded framework research or a "discover N candidates in family X" brief. Triggers on "research framework", "grade this method", "evidence dossier", "discover candidates".

Builds an abstraction ladder that moves a problem up ("why / to what end?") and down ("how / what specifically?") to locate the right altitude to work at, then marks one rung as the working level. Use when a problem is stated as a bare solution with an unstated purpose, as a vague aspiration with no concrete handle, when people are arguing past each other at different levels, or before committing effort at an altitude nobody chose on purpose.

Produces a clustered theme map that groups many raw notes, observations, quotes, or data points bottom-up into a small set of named, traceable themes (the KJ method). Use when a scattered pile of dozens to hundreds of existing items needs to become a few emergent themes, such as synthesizing user-research notes, support tickets, survey free-text, or retro stickies, and the right structure should emerge from the data rather than be imposed.

Produces a structured after-action review by comparing what was expected against what actually happened, diagnosing why the gaps occurred, and converting them into specific owned sustain-and-change actions. Use when a project, launch, sprint, or incident has finished and you want to turn the outcome into learning, not a status update.

Handles a by-name request for ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses), the evidence-by-hypothesis disconfirmation matrix, honestly. Controlled trials found ACH raises confidence with no accuracy gain and does not reduce confirmation bias, so this skill does NOT build the matrix as if valid. It leads with that evidence, then routes to the evidence-based move the job actually needs (think-red-team-light, think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, or think-what-would-have-to-be-true). Use only when someone asks for ACH or a competing-hypotheses matrix by name.

Produces an argument map by laying out a claim's supporting reasons, the co-premises each silently depends on, and the objections against it as an explicit structure, then flags the weakest links and unsupported premises. Use when an argument or recommendation must be evaluated for soundness, or when a fluent case may be hiding a broken inference.