agentleFS
GiangGiangTranGiangGiangTran/ba-skills/skills/critical-thinking/SKILL.md

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

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
  1. Distinctive:

    When: When initial problem seems obvious but may not be the real issue

    line 54
  2. Distinctive:

    Update beliefs as you gather evidence.

    line 154
  3. Distinctive:

    Do conclusions follow from evidence?

    line 203

“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.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

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 monitoring

When: 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 proceeding

When: 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 adjustment

When: 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 year

When: 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)

  1. Define Problem Clearly
    • What exactly is the problem?
    • Symptoms vs root cause?
    • Scope and boundaries?
  2. Gather Evidence
    • What data exists?
    • What's missing?
    • Is source reliable?
  3. Identify Assumptions
    • What are we assuming?
    • Which assumptions critical?
    • Which unvalidated?
  4. Analyze Alternatives
    • What other explanations possible?
    • What other solutions available?
    • What trade-offs for each?
  5. Evaluate Logic
    • Do conclusions follow from evidence?
    • Any logical fallacies?
    • Any missing steps?
  6. Test Conclusions
    • How would we know if right?
    • What would prove wrong?
    • What gaps remain?
  7. Document Reasoning
    • Why this conclusion?
    • What evidence supports it?
    • What's uncertain?
  8. 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

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.