critical-thinking
Skill2 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Use when about to build something someone proposed, especially when the proposer sounds confident and the idea sounds obviously fine.
21 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- coji/natural-japanesetheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- pradyumnasagar/open-research-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- tovrleaf/openkatatheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- GiangGiangTran/ba-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- tronghieu/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- mia-cx/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
Other versions21 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 21
- coji/natural-japanese★ 2ksame name
- TheGoat395/Codex-Skills★ 136same name
- tronghieu/agent-skills★ 94same name
- ysskrishna/ai-agent-skills★ 20same name
- mlevison/agent-thinking-skills★ 18same name
- deciqAI/knowledge-skills★ 13same name
- GiangGiangTran/ba-skills★ 8same name
- pradyumnasagar/open-research-skills★ 8same name
- Johna2an/critical-thinking★ 5same name
- Cogni-AI-OU/cogni-ai-agent-skills★ 4same name
11 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository19 other files it gives its agents.
- build-release-mindsetSkill
- de-ai-proseSkill
- entry-point-auditSkill
- feasibility-guardSkill
- fix-in-the-shared-layerSkill
- fix-the-root-causeSkill
- independent-review-gateSkill
- logging-for-remote-diagnosisSkill
- no-duplicate-logicSkill
- opportunistic-fixesSkill
- performance-at-scaleSkill
- plan-with-teethSkill
- project-onto-all-systemsSkill
- question-the-premiseSkill
- tests-with-teethSkill
- user-action-edge-casesSkill
- using-instinctsSkill
- ux-designer-mindsetSkill
- verify-against-codeSkill
The file
Files
The rule
A proposal that sounds reasonable can still be wrong, and the person proposing it, often the user sounding sure, can't always see the flaw. Before you build what was asked, run the idea through one concrete example. If the example breaks, stop and say so. Building first and finding the flaw later wastes everyone's time, and "they sounded confident" is not a reason to skip the check.
This sharpens superpowers' brainstorming: brainstorming explores what to build; this is the one-example probe it doesn't mandate.
Fires when
Someone proposes a rule, a filter, a UX behavior, or a piece of logic and you're about to implement it. Strongest when the proposer is sure and the idea sounds obviously fine.
How to apply
Pick one concrete case and walk the proposal through it, out loud. Use a case that stresses the edges, not the happy path. If the proposal produces a wrong or surprising result, name it plainly and explain the case before writing code. Offer the fix or ask the question. Don't implement first and find the flaw in testing.
Worked example
A user asks for a filter: "show only the highest-severity issue per file." Reasonable on its face. Run one example. A file has one critical bug and one minor one. Now the user switches to cleaning up minor issues and filters for them. That file vanishes from the minor filter, because its highest severity is critical. The filter hides the very things the user is trying to find. You caught a real regression with one example, before a line of code. The confident phrasing of the request didn't make it correct.
Red flags
| Thought | Reality |
| "They asked for it and they sound sure" | Confidence isn't correctness. Run the example. |
| "It's obviously fine, I'll just build it" | Obvious ideas fail on the case you didn't picture. |
| "I'll catch problems in testing" | Testing a flawed design just confirms the flaw works. |
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.