thinking-toolkit
Skill16 starsChanged 2 months agoMITView on GitHub
Apply a named Thinking Toolkit model or audit an argument with /logic. Use only when the user explicitly invokes the toolkit, names an included model or alias, or invokes /logic.
3 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- ZhouYinLong-lab/Dog-Skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- EtherealMingo/university-teacher-skillstheir own version, first seen Oct 20, 2026
- Rogers-F/thinking-toolkittheir own version, first seen Aug 30, 2026
Other versions3 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 3
- EtherealMingo/university-teacher-skills★ 16same name
- ZhouYinLong-lab/Dog-Skills★ 7same name
- Rogers-F/thinking-toolkit★ 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 repositoryOne other file it gives its agents.
- AGENTS.mdAGENTS.md
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
16 rules. About 0 are common, 16 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.
≈0
Common · estimate
Many files like this have a rule of this kind.
≈16
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 19
Never invent missing evidence.
- Distinctive: line 29
Use the requested model when the user names it or an unambiguous alias.
- Distinctive: line 36
Use this mode only when the user explicitly asks Thinking Toolkit or a structured thinking toolkit to choose a method but does not name one.
- Distinctive: line 46
Read the catalog and shortlist the models whose selection cues match.
- Distinctive: line 64
Ask up to three focused questions when missing information could materially change the model, framing, or recommendation.
- Distinctive: line 70
Use a quick pass for low-stakes, reversible, time-sensitive situations.
- Distinctive: line 71
Use a standard pass for ordinary planning, analysis, and communication.
- Distinctive: line 72
Use a deep pass for consequential, hard-to-reverse, contested, or systemic situations.
- Distinctive: line 78
Read the selected card before using it.
- Distinctive: line 84
Check for unsupported causal claims, hidden assumptions, omitted stakeholders, double-counted criteria, false precision, and missing …
- Distinctive: line 103
Use one model by default.
- Distinctive: line 104
Use a sequence only when models perform different phases, such as classify, analyze, choose, stress-test, or communicate.
- Distinctive: line 106
Use no more than three models unless the user explicitly asks for a broader workshop.
- Distinctive: line 108
Do not combine near-duplicates merely to appear thorough.
- Distinctive: line 111
Read the combination recipes in the catalog before constructing a sequence.
- Distinctive: line 136
Read the logic overview first — it carries the core contract, the analysis procedure, and the verdict format.
≈ “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
Thinking Toolkit
Apply structured thinking without assuming access to tools, browsing, code, memory, or a particular LLM provider. Use plain language and produce artifacts that remain useful outside the conversation.
Core Contract
- Reply in the user's language. Keep standard model names recognizable.
- Preserve user agency. Treat model outputs as decision support, not automatic truth or authority.
- Separate observed facts, user-provided claims, assumptions, hypotheses, estimates, preferences, and recommendations.
- Never invent missing evidence. Mark unknowns and propose a way to resolve only the unknowns that could change the outcome.
- Give a concise selection rationale and the resulting artifact. Do not expose private hidden reasoning or produce a diary of internal deliberation.
- Match depth to stakes, reversibility, uncertainty, and user intent.
Choose the Mode
Explicit-model mode
Use the requested model when the user names it or an unambiguous alias. Read the catalog, then read only that model's card. Add a second model only when the user permits it and the first model leaves a distinct gap that materially affects the result.
Automatic-selection mode
Use this mode only when the user explicitly asks Thinking Toolkit or a structured thinking toolkit to choose a method but does not name one. Do not select a model merely because an ordinary request could be approached with a framework.
- Identify the job: decide, prioritize, diagnose, reframe, generate, map a system, resolve conflict, give feedback, communicate, or learn from a completed attempt.
- Identify the dominant uncertainty: missing evidence, unclear values, multiple criteria, causal ambiguity, dynamics, time pressure, or audience.
- Read the catalog and shortlist the models whose selection cues match.
- Choose one primary model. Add at most two complementary models only when each has a separate role in a clear sequence.
- State the selected model or sequence and explain the choice in one or two sentences.
Use the Adaptive Workflow
1. Frame the situation
Capture only what matters:
- the desired outcome and decision owner or audience;
- scope, constraints, time horizon, and deadline;
- available options, evidence, and prior actions;
- stakes, reversibility, uncertainty, and affected people.
Ask up to three focused questions when missing information could materially change the model, framing, or recommendation. Otherwise proceed and label reasonable assumptions.
2. Set the working depth
- Use a quick pass for low-stakes, reversible, time-sensitive situations.
- Use a standard pass for ordinary planning, analysis, and communication.
- Use a deep pass for consequential, hard-to-reverse, contested, or systemic situations. Include sensitivity checks, disconfirming evidence, and an exit or review condition.
3. Apply the model faithfully
Read the selected card before using it. Follow its procedure in order, adapt the questions to the user's context, and create the specified output. Do not reduce a model to a label or generic advice.
4. Test the result
Check for unsupported causal claims, hidden assumptions, omitted stakeholders, double-counted criteria, false precision, and missing alternatives. Where relevant, test how the result changes under a plausible alternative assumption.
5. Close with action
End with the decision, insight, draft, experiment, or next step the user asked for. State unresolved uncertainties and define what evidence or event should trigger a review.
Catalog Routing
The catalog is the single index for model names, aliases, selection cues, category counts, and combination recipes. Read it to resolve an explicit alias or make an authorized automatic selection, then load only the selected model card or cards.
Combine Models Deliberately
- Use one model by default.
- Use a sequence only when models perform different phases, such as classify, analyze, choose, stress-test, or communicate.
- Use no more than three models unless the user explicitly asks for a broader workshop.
- Do not combine near-duplicates merely to appear thorough.
- Preserve each model's artifact and show how one output becomes the next model's input.
- Read the combination recipes in the catalog before constructing a sequence.
Shape the Response
Match the output to the user's requested format and level of detail; no fixed set of headings is required. Include the selected model and a brief rationale when that helps the user follow the artifact. Label material assumptions and uncertainties, preserve the model's required artifact, and end with the decision, draft, insight, experiment, or next step the user requested.
Logic Analysis (/logic)
The model cards above help the user choose how to think. The /logic mode does
something different: it audits reasoning that already exists — a claim, an
argument, or a draft — and returns a verdict on its validity.
Route here when the user explicitly invokes /logic, including with an
argument, draft, or textbook logic task in any language. It has three modes:
- review (default) — diagnose the argument and deliver a verdict; no rewrite.
- fix — repair the reasoning with minimal intervention, preserving voice.
- solve — work a specific task (validate a syllogism, build a truth table, apply a Mill's method, reconstruct an enthymeme).
Read the logic overview first — it carries the core contract, the analysis procedure, and the verdict format. Then read only the reference needed:
- Logic overview — modes, argument reconstruction, laws of thought, verdict format.
- Fallacy taxonomy — named errors (English + Latin) with modern examples.
- Formal validity — syllogism rules and propositional/truth-functional tests.
- Induction — generalization, Mill's methods, analogy, hypothesis strength.
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.

