agentleFS
Sign inStart free
typvtypv/nest-turbo-starter/.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md

sequential-thinking

Skill224 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub

Apply step-by-step analysis for complex problems with revision capability. Use for multi-step reasoning, hypothesis verification, adaptive planning, problem decomposition, course correction.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 2 are distinctive, and 0 are very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 22 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 2

    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:

    All critical aspects addressed

    line 69
  2. Distinctive:

    Explicit: Use visible thought markers when complexity warrants visible reasoning or user requests breakdown.

    line 75

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 22 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

Sequential Thinking

Structured problem-solving via manageable, reflective thought sequences with dynamic adjustment.

When to Apply

  • Complex problem decomposition
  • Adaptive planning with revision capability
  • Analysis needing course correction
  • Problems with unclear/emerging scope
  • Multi-step solutions requiring context maintenance
  • Hypothesis-driven investigation/debugging

Core Process

1. Start with Loose Estimate

Thought 1/5: [Initial analysis]

Adjust dynamically as understanding evolves.

2. Structure Each Thought

  • Build on previous context explicitly
  • Address one aspect per thought
  • State assumptions, uncertainties, realizations
  • Signal what next thought should address

3. Apply Dynamic Adjustment

  • Expand: More complexity discovered → increase total
  • Contract: Simpler than expected → decrease total
  • Revise: New insight invalidates previous → mark revision
  • Branch: Multiple approaches → explore alternatives

4. Use Revision When Needed

Thought 5/8 [REVISION of Thought 2]: [Corrected understanding]
- Original: [What was stated]
- Why revised: [New insight]
- Impact: [What changes]

5. Branch for Alternatives

Thought 4/7 [BRANCH A from Thought 2]: [Approach A]
Thought 4/7 [BRANCH B from Thought 2]: [Approach B]

Compare explicitly, converge with decision rationale.

6. Generate & Verify Hypotheses

Thought 6/9 [HYPOTHESIS]: [Proposed solution]
Thought 7/9 [VERIFICATION]: [Test results]

Iterate until hypothesis verified.

7. Complete Only When Ready

Mark final: Thought N/N [FINAL]

Complete when:

  • Solution verified
  • All critical aspects addressed
  • Confidence achieved
  • No outstanding uncertainties

Application Modes

Explicit: Use visible thought markers when complexity warrants visible reasoning or user requests breakdown.

Implicit: Apply methodology internally for routine problem-solving where thinking aids accuracy without cluttering response.

Scripts (Optional)

Optional scripts for deterministic validation/tracking:

  • scripts/process-thought.js - Validate & track thoughts with history
  • scripts/format-thought.js - Format for display (box/markdown/simple)

See README.md for usage examples. Use when validation/persistence needed; otherwise apply methodology directly.

References

Load when deeper understanding needed:

  • references/core-patterns.md - Revision & branching patterns
  • references/examples-api.md - API design example
  • references/examples-debug.md - Debugging example
  • references/examples-architecture.md - Architecture decision example
  • references/advanced-techniques.md - Spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence
  • references/advanced-strategies.md - Uncertainty, revision cascades, meta-thinking

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.

Check your setup, free