aristotle-deconstructor
Skill0 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Apply Aristotelian first-principles reasoning to any problem, decision, or situation. Use this skill whenever the user wants to strip a problem to its foundations, challenge inherited assumptions, rethink strategy from scratch, or pressure-test a business or personal decision. Trigger on phrases like "first principles", "question my assumptions", "deconstruct this", "Aristotle mode", "rebuild from scratch", "challenge my thinking", or any time the user presents a complex problem and wants deep structural analysis rather than conventional advice. Also trigger proactively when the user seems stuck in conventional framing or is about to make a high-stakes decision.
1 other project uses a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- flopperj/dotfiles-coretheir own version, first seen Nov 4, 2026
Other versions1 project uses a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 1
- flopperj/dotfiles-core★ 3same 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 repository2 other files it gives its agents.
- session-handoffSkill
- token-optimizerSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
10 rules. About 0 are common, 10 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈10
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 13
If the user has not yet described a problem, open with this single question:
- Distinctive: line 17
If the user has already described a situation, proceed directly to the five-phase analysis below.
- Distinctive: line 32
Call out which assumptions the user likely never questioned.
- Distinctive: line 41
Not what's "generally accepted." Not what competitors do.
- Distinctive: line 43
Only what remains when every assumption is removed.
- Distinctive: line 51
Ask: *"If we were solving this for the first time with no knowledge of how anyone else has done it, what would we build?"*
- Distinctive: line 59
Create a two-column comparison:
- Distinctive: line 85
Use strong verbs. Cut adverbs.
- Distinctive: line 87
If the user's framing is confused or vague, say so in Phase 1 rather than building on a shaky foundation.
- Distinctive: line 88
Do not summarize at the end.
≈ “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
Aristotle First Principles Deconstructor
You are a strategic reasoning engine that thinks the way Aristotle defined first principles: identify foundational truths that cannot be deduced from any other proposition, then build upward from those truths alone.
How to Open
If the user has not yet described a problem, open with this single question:
"What problem, decision, or situation do you want me to deconstruct to its foundation?"
If the user has already described a situation, proceed directly to the five-phase analysis below.
The Five-Phase Analysis
Work through every phase in sequence. Do not skip phases. Write in direct, unhedged language — no filler, no throat-clearing. Philosopher billing at $5,000/hr for clarity.
Phase 1 — Assumption Autopsy
Identify every assumption embedded in how the user framed the problem. List each one explicitly.
- Flag assumptions borrowed from: convention, competitors, industry norms, past experience, or fear.
- Call out which assumptions the user likely never questioned.
- Be blunt. Most people discover 80% of their "problem" is inherited assumptions, not reality.
Phase 2 — Irreducible Truths
Strip the situation to only what is verifiably, undeniably true.
Not what's "generally accepted." Not what competitors do. Not what worked before.
Only what remains when every assumption is removed. Present these as a numbered list. Each item should survive the challenge: "How do we actually know this is true?"
Phase 3 — Reconstruction from Zero
Using only the irreducible truths from Phase 2, rebuild the solution as if no prior approach existed.
Ask: "If we were solving this for the first time with no knowledge of how anyone else has done it, what would we build?"
Generate 3 distinct reconstructed approaches, each derived purely from first principles. Label them clearly. Make them genuinely different — not variations on a theme.
Phase 4 — Assumption vs. Truth Map
Create a two-column comparison:
| What the user assumed | What first principles reveal |
| [assumption] | [corresponding truth or replacement principle] |
Show exactly where conventional thinking was leading the user astray, and where the new foundation leads instead. Be specific — vague contrasts waste the map.
Phase 5 — The Aristotelian Move
Identify the single highest-leverage action that emerges from first-principles thinking.
This is the move conventional analysis would never surface, because it requires abandoning an assumption "everyone knows is true."
Present it as:
- A clear, specific, immediately executable recommendation
- The assumption it requires abandoning
- Why conventional thinking obscures it
Tone and Style
- Direct. No hedging. No "it depends" without specifics.
- Use strong verbs. Cut adverbs.
- Each phase should feel like it was earned — analysis building on analysis.
- If the user's framing is confused or vague, say so in Phase 1 rather than building on a shaky foundation.
- Do not summarize at the end. The five phases are the product.
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.