critical-thinking
Skill8 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Develop logical analysis skills - break down complex problems, identify root causes, test assumptions, evaluate evidence quality, build sound arguments. Use for problem analysis, decision-making, and validating business logic.
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
- tronghieu/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 18, 2026
- mia-cx/skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 16, 2026
- ysskrishna/ai-agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 13, 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
- pradyumnasagar/open-research-skills★ 8same name
- Johna2an/critical-thinking★ 5same name
- Cogni-AI-OU/cogni-ai-agent-skills★ 4same name
- mia-cx/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 repository12 other files it gives its agents.
- assumption-validationSkill
- business-fundamentalsSkill
- communicationSkill
- compliance-riskSkill
- data-analysisSkill
- doc-synthesisSkill
- insight-extractionSkill
- market-dynamicsSkill
- pattern-recognitionSkill
- stakeholder-managementSkill
- technical-basicsSkill
- user-psychologySkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
3 rules. 0 are common, 3 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 19 edited versions we read keep these.
3
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
0
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 54
When: When initial problem seems obvious but may not be the real issue
- Distinctive: line 154
Update beliefs as you gather evidence.
- Distinctive: line 203
Do conclusions follow from evidence?
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 19 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
Critical Thinking for BA
Master the BA's core skill: analyzing problems logically and rigorously.
What is Critical Thinking for BA?
Definition: Disciplined process of actively analyzing, evaluating, and synthesizing information to reach well-reasoned conclusions and identify root causes.
When to Use:
- ✅ Analyzing complex business problems
- ✅ Breaking down vague requirements into specific issues
- ✅ Testing assumptions before major decisions
- ✅ Evaluating competing proposals fairly
- ✅ Identifying root causes vs symptoms
- ✅ Building logical arguments for stakeholders
5 Core Thinking Frameworks
1. Root Cause Analysis (5 Whys)
Dig deeper to find real cause, not symptoms.
Process:
Problem: "Users complaining about slow system"
Why 1: Why is system slow?
→ Database queries taking too long
Why 2: Why are queries slow?
→ Missing indexes on common queries
Why 3: Why missing indexes?
→ Database optimization not prioritized
Why 4: Why not prioritized?
→ Performance metrics not tracked
Why 5: Why not tracked?
→ No performance SLA defined
Root Cause: Missing performance SLA and monitoringWhen: When initial problem seems obvious but may not be the real issue
See: references/root-cause-analysis.md
2. Logical Argumentation (Toulmin Model)
Build arguments that stakeholders can follow and challenge.
Structure:
CLAIM: "We should build feature X"
EVIDENCE:
- 60% of users requested this
- Competitors have it
- User testing shows $50K annual value
WARRANT (Why evidence supports claim):
- User research is reliable indicator
- Competitor feature validates market need
- Financial impact is material
COUNTER-ARGUMENT:
- Effort: 3 months development
- Risk: Integration complexity
CONCLUSION:
- Benefits outweigh costs
- Recommend proceedingWhen: Presenting proposals to decision-makers
See: references/logical-argumentation.md
3. Assumption Testing (Lean Startup)
Validate critical assumptions before committing resources.
Framework:
Business Model Assumption: "Users will pay $50/month"
Test Method: Interview 20 users
Critical Success Factors:
- 70%+ express interest
- 50%+ willing to commit
- Average acceptable price: $40-60
Results:
- 75% interested ✓
- 45% willing to commit ✗
- Average acceptable: $30-40 ✗
Decision: Price assumption invalid, need adjustmentWhen: Major decisions depend on unproven assumptions
See: references/assumption-testing.md
4. MECE Analysis (Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive)
Organize information clearly so nothing is missed.
Example:
Problem: "User engagement is declining"
MECE breakdown:
├─ User Segments
│ ├─ New users (0-30 days) ← Check separately
│ ├─ Active users (31+ days)
│ └─ Churned users
│
├─ Engagement Metrics
│ ├─ Frequency (sessions/week)
│ ├─ Duration (time per session)
│ └─ Feature usage
│
└─ Decline Period
├─ Last month
├─ Last quarter
└─ Last yearWhen: Analyzing large problems systematically
See: references/mece-analysis.md
5. Bayesian Thinking (Probability & Evidence)
Update beliefs as you gather evidence.
Framework:
Prior Belief: "Feature X will be adopted by 30% of users"
(Based on similar features)
Evidence 1: User interviews show 60% expressing interest
→ Update: Maybe 40-50% adoption likely
Evidence 2: Competitor adoption is 20%
→ Update: Maybe 30-35% adoption
Evidence 3: User testing shows difficult UX
→ Update: Back to 25-30% adoption
Final Assessment: 28% adoption likely
(More accurate than initial guess)When: Making decisions with incomplete information
See: references/bayesian-thinking.md
Critical Thinking Process (8 Steps)
- Define Problem Clearly
- What exactly is the problem?
- Symptoms vs root cause?
- Scope and boundaries?
- Gather Evidence
- What data exists?
- What's missing?
- Is source reliable?
- Identify Assumptions
- What are we assuming?
- Which assumptions critical?
- Which unvalidated?
- Analyze Alternatives
- What other explanations possible?
- What other solutions available?
- What trade-offs for each?
- Evaluate Logic
- Do conclusions follow from evidence?
- Any logical fallacies?
- Any missing steps?
- Test Conclusions
- How would we know if right?
- What would prove wrong?
- What gaps remain?
- Document Reasoning
- Why this conclusion?
- What evidence supports it?
- What's uncertain?
- Communicate Decision
- Clear to stakeholders?
- Can they challenge reasoning?
- Buy-in achieved?
Common Thinking Pitfalls to Avoid
❌ Confirmation Bias: Only seeking evidence that supports your view ✅ Fix: Actively search for contradicting evidence
❌ Anchoring Bias: First number heard becomes reference point ✅ Fix: Generate estimates independently before comparing
❌ False Cause: Assuming A caused B because they happened together ✅ Fix: Use 5 Whys to find actual mechanism
❌ Sunk Cost Fallacy: Continuing because invested so much already ✅ Fix: Evaluate only future costs/benefits, not past investment
❌ False Dichotomy: "Either A or B" when other options exist ✅ Fix: Use MECE to find all alternatives
❌ Argument from Authority: "Expert says so, therefore true" ✅ Fix: Evaluate evidence, not authority
Tools & Templates
- 📋 5 Whys Analysis Template:
assets/5-whys-template.md - 📋 Assumption Testing Template:
assets/assumption-test-template.md - 📋 MECE Analysis Template:
assets/mece-template.md - 📋 Logical Argument Template:
assets/argument-template.md
Usage Examples
/critical-thinking "Sales declining but product reviews are positive"
/critical-thinking "Should we build mobile app or web app first?"
/critical-thinking "Users report feature X is confusing - cause unclear"BA Standards & References
Based on:
- Critical Thinking Skills: Bloom's Taxonomy (Analyze, Evaluate, Create)
- Root Cause Analysis: Lean Startup methodology
- Logic & Argumentation: Toulmin Model
- Problem Analysis: BABOK - Problem Analysis & Root Cause Analysis
Detailed Frameworks:
- 📚
references/root-cause-analysis.md- 5 Whys with business examples - 📚
references/logical-argumentation.md- Building convincing arguments - 📚
references/assumption-testing.md- Validating risky assumptions - 📚
references/mece-analysis.md- Organizing complex problems - 📚
references/bayesian-thinking.md- Probabilistic reasoning
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.

