thinker
Skill0 starsChanged 4 months agoMITView on GitHub
Specialized in structured reasoning, mental scaffolding, and breaking down complex problems. Use at the start of every task to ensure deep, transparent, and auditable thinking before taking action. DO NOT USE FOR: brainstorming with the user (use brainstorming), implementation (use implementer), or producing final deliverable artifacts (complete documents, code, designs). Thinker produces intermediate outputs like reasoning scaffolds and action plans for handoff to implementer or architect.
3 other projects use a version of this, 1 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ruccess/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- karim-bhalwani/agent-skills-collectionedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- bushuhui/skillstheir own version, first seen Jun 5, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 1
- karim-bhalwani/agent-skills-collection★ 071% same
Wrote their own version · 2
- bushuhui/skills★ 2same name
- ruccess/skills★ 1same 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 repository29 other files it gives its agents.
- architectSkill
- brainstormingSkill
- concise-planningSkill
- context-engineerSkill
- data-analystSkill
- data-deprecation-analysisSkill
- data-engineeringSkill
- analystSkill
- detectiveSkill
- editorSkill
- inspectorSkill
- data-narrativeSkill
- data-scienceSkill
- excalidraw-diagramSkill
- genai-securitySkill
- guardianSkill
- holdout-validationSkill
- implementerSkill
- llm-app-patternsSkill
- llm-memSkill
- opsSkill
- prompt-librarySkill
- security-boundariesSkill
- story-masterSkill
- story-plannerSkill
- subagent-executionSkill
- systematic-debuggingSkill
- task-routingSkill
- verification-before-completionSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
5 rules. About 0 are common, 4 are distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈4
Distinctive · estimate
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
1
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 24
Before executing any non-trivial task, run this chain internally.
- Distinctive: line 70
Run a self-checklist against constraints.
- Distinctive: line 71
Verify adherence to project rules (e.g., security, type safety).
- Distinctive: line 76
If stuck or if validation fails, step back.
- Very specific: line 84
Initialize: Call the thinker skill.
≈ “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
Thinker Skill - Cognitive Reasoning & Scaffolding
Version: 9.0 | Updated: 01-July-2026 | Architect: Karim Bhalwani |
Overview
The Thinker skill provides a set of cognitive operations that prevent "leaping to conclusions" and ensure all variables are considered before execution.
Cognitive Chain Protocol
Before executing any non-trivial task, run this chain internally. UNDERSTAND, EXTRACT, and HIGHLIGHT must be surfaced as visible markdown blocks when Workflow Integration is triggered. APPLY and VALIDATE may remain internal unless the task requires explicit auditability.
UNDERSTAND ─► EXTRACT ─► HIGHLIGHT ─► APPLY ─► VALIDATE
│ │ │ │ │
What is the What context What are Do the Did the output
real problem? do I need? the risks work. meet the
What are the Pull from and Execute requirements?
constraints? project priorities? step by Check against
Success files, Surface step. constraints
criteria? specs, and patterns and acceptance
prior work. to follow. criteria.When to apply: Any task involving design decisions, multi-step execution, security-sensitive logic, debugging, or review. Skip only when the task has no design decisions, no cross-file impact, and no security or correctness risk - for example: a single-file typo fix, a local variable rename with no semantic change, or a comment update. When in doubt, apply the full chain.
If VALIDATE fails: Enter BACKTRACK. Step back, re-examine assumptions, propose a new path or escalate to the user.
Reasoning Scaffolds
1. UNDERSTAND
- Identify the core problem.
- Define domain requirements (explicit and implicit).
- Establish objective success criteria (acceptance criteria).
2. EXTRACT
- Pull context from project standards (tech stack, architecture).
- Gather relevant outputs from previous steps or agents.
- Identify specific file paths, API contracts, and data models involved.
3. HIGHLIGHT
- Surface critical patterns that must be followed.
- Identify integration points and potential risks (e.g., edge cases).
- Establish a clear Priority Order of operations.
4. APPLY
- Select the appropriate reasoning technique or design pattern.
- Plan the step-by-step execution.
- Maintain a log of tactical decisions made during execution.
5. VALIDATE
- Run a self-checklist against constraints.
- Verify adherence to project rules (e.g., security, type safety).
- Perform a quality check on outputs before finalizing.
6. BACKTRACK
- If stuck or if validation fails, step back.
- Analyze assumptions and identify where they went wrong.
- Propose new resolution paths or escalate questions.
Workflow Integration
Whenever a complex task is received:
- Initialize: Call the
thinkerskill. - Scaffold: Output a
## UNDERSTANDblock, followed byEXTRACTandHIGHLIGHT. - Transition: Hand off the "Action Plan" to the
implementerorarchitect.
Definition of Done
- UNDERSTAND, EXTRACT, and HIGHLIGHT blocks are complete
- Action plan is unambiguous with ordered steps
- All assumptions are documented and flagged by confidence level
- Constraints (security, performance, scope) are explicitly listed
- Plan accepted by
implementerorarchitectbefore execution - If the plan is not accepted, return to BACKTRACK, revise based on the rejection reason, and re-present. If acceptance cannot be determined (e.g., no other agent responds), flag the plan as unverified and surface it to the user before proceeding.
Constraints
- NO implementation. This is purely for reasoning and planning.
- NO direct filesystem edits.
- MANDATORY when the user request does not specify at least one of: success criteria, technical constraints, or target component. If any of these are missing, do not skip the chain.
Outputs & Deliverables
- Primary Output: Reasoning scaffolds, action plans, and validation checklists (markdown)
- Secondary Output: List of clarifying questions and prioritized assumptions
- Success Criteria: Action plan is unambiguous and passes the
verification-before-completionpre-checks - Quality Gate:
implementerorarchitectacceptance of the plan before execution
Additional Constraints
- Governance Constraints: Document assumptions and decisions in
decisions.mdwhen they change architecture or scope. Ifdecisions.mddoes not exist, note in the action plan that it must be created before handoff, and include the decision log entry as a block in the thinker output so it is not lost.
Integration Points
| Phase | Input From | Output To | Context |
| Problem Entry | User request | Reasoning scaffolds | UNDERSTAND, EXTRACT, HIGHLIGHT |
| Planning | Analyzed request | architect or implementer | Provide validated action plan |
| Decision Log | Key assumptions/decisions | context-engineer | Document decisions in decisions.md |
| Validation | Draft plan | Pre-flight checklist | Verify against constraints before execution |
References
Load when scaffolding reasoning documents and structured briefs:
- brief.md - Problem brief template. Load when the task requires a formal thought document - captures problem statement, assumptions, constraints, and action plan in a single structured artifact.
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.

