sequential-thinking

Solid

Structured reasoning harness for problems where shallow thinking fails or hallucination is costly. Use whenever a question requires multi-step reasoning, involves competing hypotheses, has multiple interacting components, or carries irreversible consequences. Activate for debugging with unclear root causes, intermittent or multi-component issues, incident post-mortems, choosing between multiple valid approaches, architecture or design tradeoffs, causal chain analysis, high-stakes decisions, and any task where the first plausible answer is suspiciously easy. Provides reasoning modes (abductive, counterfactual, first-principles, inversion, and more), grounding techniques against confabulation, adversarial self-checks, root-cause playbooks, and automatic multi-approach synthesis (independent angles run in parallel and compared) — all through the `mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking` tool. Skip for trivial lookups, obvious fixes, and single-step questions.

AI & Automation 13 stars 2 forks Updated 5 days ago MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 83/100

Stars 20%
38
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Sequential Thinking A reasoning harness around the `mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking` tool. The MCP tool provides persistence, revision, and branching for thoughts; this skill provides the *discipline* for using it well — when to invoke it, how to structure each thought, which reasoning mode fits which problem, how to ground claims against hallucination, when to challenge yourself adversarially, and when to stop. The core insight: smart reasoning isn't about thinking harder. It's about thinking with the right mode for the situation, anchoring claims to evidence, and knowing when one approach isn't enough. --- ## Decide whether to use this skill at all Not every question needs structured reasoning. Activating this skill on a trivial question wastes tokens, slows the response, and trains a reflex of overthinking. Skipping it on a hard question produces shallow answers and hallucinations. The cost of misuse cuts both ways. Two tests decide. Use the skill if either fires: **Reversibility test.** Is the consequence of being wrong easy to undo, or hard? - *Easy to undo* (Type 2 / two-way door): pick a variable name, suggest a library, draft prose, fix an obvious typo. Skip the skill. A mistake costs seconds. - *Hard to undo* (Type 1 / one-way door): choose an architecture, ship code to production, commit to a design that other code will depend on, advise on an irreversible decision. Activate the skill. A mistake costs hours, days, or trust. **System-2 signal t...

Details

Author
app-builders-club
Repository
app-builders-club/mvp-builder
Created
1 years ago
Last Updated
5 days ago
Language
Shell
License
MIT

Integrates with

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category