thinking-first-principles
Skill2 starsChanged 9 months agoMITView on GitHub
Break complex problems into fundamental truths by questioning assumptions and rebuilding from irreducible components. Use for innovation, challenging status quo, or when conventional solutions fail.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- mykaarma/kaarma-skillstheir own version, first seen Apr 28, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- mykaarma/kaarma-skills★ 4same name
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 repository38 other files it gives its agents.
- thinking-archetypesSkill
- thinking-bayesianSkill
- thinking-bounded-rationalitySkill
- thinking-circle-of-competenceSkill
- thinking-cynefinSkill
- thinking-debiasingSkill
- thinking-dual-processSkill
- thinking-effectuationSkill
- thinking-feedback-loopsSkill
- thinking-fermi-estimationSkill
- thinking-five-whys-plusSkill
- thinking-inversionSkill
- thinking-jobs-to-be-doneSkill
- thinking-kepner-tregoeSkill
- thinking-leverage-pointsSkill
- thinking-lindy-effectSkill
- thinking-map-territorySkill
- thinking-margin-of-safetySkill
- thinking-model-combinationSkill
- thinking-model-routerSkill
- thinking-model-selectionSkill
- thinking-occams-razorSkill
- thinking-oodaSkill
- thinking-opportunity-costSkill
- thinking-pre-mortemSkill
- thinking-probabilisticSkill
- thinking-red-teamSkill
- thinking-regret-minimizationSkill
- thinking-reversibilitySkill
- thinking-scientific-methodSkill
- thinking-second-orderSkill
- thinking-socraticSkill
- thinking-steel-manningSkill
- thinking-systemsSkill
- thinking-theory-of-constraintsSkill
- thinking-thought-experimentSkill
- thinking-trizSkill
- thinking-via-negativaSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 5 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈5
Distinctive · estimate
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 11
Core Principle: Don't accept "that's how it's always done." Reduce to fundamentals, then rebuild.
- Distinctive: line 44
Ask repeatedly: "What are we absolutely certain is true?"
- Distinctive: line 67
Use the "5 Whys" to drill deeper:
- Distinctive: line 142
Inversion: After first principles, ask "what would make this fail?"
- Distinctive: line 143
Second-Order Thinking: Consider downstream effects of your new approach
≈ “Common” is an estimate: at least 1 in 5 of the 350,495 skill files we read have a rule of the same kind, not the same words. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
First Principles Reasoning
Overview
First principles thinking strips away assumptions and conventions to reveal fundamental truths, then reconstructs solutions from those basics. This approach, championed by Elon Musk and rooted in Aristotle's philosophy, enables breakthrough solutions by escaping the trap of reasoning by analogy.
Core Principle: Don't accept "that's how it's always done." Reduce to fundamentals, then rebuild.
When to Use
- Conventional approaches have failed or seem inadequate
- You're told something is "impossible" or "too expensive"
- Designing new systems/products from scratch
- Challenging industry assumptions or pricing
- Problem seems intractable using existing mental models
- You need innovation rather than incremental improvement
Decision flow:
Problem intractable? → yes → Are you reasoning from analogy? → yes → APPLY FIRST PRINCIPLES
↘ no → Already at fundamentals
↘ no → Standard problem-solving may sufficeThe Process
Step 1: Identify Current Assumptions
List everything you "know" or assume about the problem:
- What are the constraints everyone accepts?
- What costs/limitations are considered fixed?
- What's the conventional wisdom?
- Why do people say it can't be done?
Example: "Rocket launches cost $65M because that's what aerospace companies charge"
Assumptions: Must buy from existing suppliers, existing designs are optimal,
materials must be aerospace-grade, vertical integration is too hardStep 2: Break Down to Fundamentals
Ask repeatedly: "What are we absolutely certain is true?"
Decomposition questions:
- What are the physical/mathematical constraints?
- What are the raw inputs required?
- What laws of physics/economics apply?
- What would this cost if built from raw materials?
- What is the minimum viable version?
Example: Rocket raw materials (aluminum, titanium, copper, carbon fiber)
= ~2% of typical rocket price
Fundamental truth: Materials aren't the cost driver;
manufacturing/overhead/margins areStep 3: Challenge Each Assumption
For each assumption, ask:
- Is this actually true, or just convention?
- What evidence supports this?
- Under what conditions would this be false?
- Who benefits from this assumption persisting?
Use the "5 Whys" to drill deeper:
Why is it expensive? → Suppliers charge high margins
Why? → Limited competition
Why? → High barriers to entry
Why? → Assumption that you must use existing supply chain
Why? → Nobody questioned itStep 4: Rebuild from Fundamentals
Starting ONLY from verified truths:
- What's the simplest solution that satisfies fundamental requirements?
- What new approaches become possible without false constraints?
- How would you solve this if starting from scratch today?
- What would a solution look like with 10x less resources?
Example: Build rockets in-house using commodity materials
= SpaceX reduced launch costs by 10xStep 5: Validate Against Reality
- Does your reconstructed solution violate any physics/laws?
- What practical constraints remain?
- What's the minimum viable test?
- How can you prove/disprove this quickly?
Mental Traps to Avoid
| Trap | Description | Antidote |
| Reasoning by Analogy | "Others do it this way" | Ask "but is it optimal?" |
| Appeal to Authority | "Experts say it's impossible" | "What specifically makes it impossible?" |
| Sunk Cost | "We've always done it this way" | "What if we started fresh today?" |
| Complexity Bias | Assuming complex = better | "What's the simplest version?" |
| False Constraints | Accepting artificial limits | "Is this a law of physics or convention?" |
Application Examples
Software Architecture
Assumption: "We need a microservices architecture"
First Principles:
- What problem are we solving? (scalability, team independence, deployment)
- What's the minimum that achieves this?
- A modular monolith might suffice for current scaleCost Reduction
Assumption: "This service costs $50k/month, that's just cloud pricing"
First Principles:
- What compute/storage do we actually need?
- What are we paying for that we don't use?
- Could we reduce by 80% with right-sizing?Feature Development
Assumption: "Users need feature X (because competitor has it)"
First Principles:
- What job is the user trying to accomplish?
- What's the simplest way to enable that job?
- Maybe a different approach solves it betterVerification Checklist
- Listed all assumptions about the problem
- Identified which assumptions are physics/math vs convention
- Challenged at least 3 "obvious" constraints
- Rebuilt solution using only verified fundamentals
- Validated that solution doesn't violate actual constraints
- Identified minimum viable test to prove/disprove approach
Combining with Other Models
- Inversion: After first principles, ask "what would make this fail?"
- Second-Order Thinking: Consider downstream effects of your new approach
- Pre-Mortem: Imagine your first-principles solution failed—why?
Key Questions
- "What do we know to be absolutely true?"
- "Why does everyone assume this constraint exists?"
- "What would we do if we had to solve this with 10% of the budget?"
- "If we were starting from scratch today, would we build it this way?"
- "What would a complete outsider try?"
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.

