Critical Thinking

Critical thinking is disciplined inquiry that keeps description separate from evaluation: surface assumptions, weigh evidence, test logic, consider alternatives, then state a proportionate conclusion. If the conventional view is well-supported, say so — this is inquiry, not contrarianism by default.

How to run it with this skill: one phase per clearly headed section, always in this order: Clarify → Information → Assumptions → Reasoning → Alternatives → Conclusion. Always include Conclusion unless the user explicitly stops the whole review early.

Setup (run before starting)

In one short block:

1. Focus — the specific claim, proposal, or question under review
2. Pass — Clarify → Information → Assumptions → Reasoning → Alternatives → Conclusion (fixed sequence; state this line once in the setup block so the user sees the path)

If essential context is missing, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note any remaining gaps or working guesses in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).

The Phases

Clarify

Restate the target in one precise sentence. Separate factual vs normative claims. Name success criteria if a decision is involved.

Information

What evidence exists? Each bullet starts with [CITED] or [MISSING]:

• [CITED] — a traceable basis (user text, repo, doc, link, study, etc.); in the same bullet, name the basis and one line on strength or limits (no extra strength tags).
• [MISSING] — no traceable basis yet for that point, or evidence was requested but not available.

Assumptions

List tacit premises. For each: Assumption: … — If false: …

When the Focus mixes is and should, surface value / normative premises too (e.g. Value premise: … — If rejected: …) alongside factual assumptions where it clarifies the chain.

Reasoning

Trace the argument chain. Flag leaps, circular patterns, correlation vs causation, and missing steps. No new factual assertions here — only structure. If a premise is needed but was never established in Information, do not assert it as true; label it as an ungrounded premise (structural gap only). When values and evidence both do work in the chain, show which links depend on which.

Bias and fallacy pass (compact): add a short sub-list — only items that apply; omit the rest rather than padding.

• Biases to scan: confirmation; anchoring; survivorship; undue authority; sunk cost — plus any other bias clearly relevant to the case.
• Fallacies to name if present (tie each to the chain above): ad hominem; straw man; false dichotomy; slippery slope; hasty generalization; begging the question.

If none apply, state that plainly in one line.

Alternatives

Credible competing explanations, plans, or frames. Do not collapse into debate rhetoric; keep alternatives plausible.

Conclusion

1. Judgment — answer the Focus directly; when factual and normative claims were both in play, separate what follows from the cited evidence from what depends on value premises (short clauses are enough). Close with one sentence in plain language on how strong the case is given [CITED] vs [MISSING] evidence.

2. What would change the judgment — concrete falsifiers or new data; phrase relative to the Focus (e.g. the claim-holder’s view, a named third party, or this assessment when the review is impersonal).

Execution Rules

1. Run phases in one response unless the user requests step-by-step pacing.
2. Never merge Information and Reasoning in the same bullet block.
3. Do not smuggle new unsupported facts into Conclusion; only synthesize prior phases.
4. If the user is emotionally fused with a position, name it neutrally and continue the phase plan.
5. Be intellectually honest: acknowledge strong opposing evidence and uncertainty where the phases support it.

Checklist (verify before responding)

• Setup block: Focus and stated Pass (fixed sequence)
• Each phase is its own section in canonical order (Clarify through Conclusion)
• Information: each bullet starts with [CITED] (basis + limits in-bullet) or [MISSING]
• Assumptions use Assumption / If false pairs; Value premise / If rejected when the Focus mixes facts and shoulds
• Reasoning references only what earlier phases established; flags ungrounded premises where needed; bias/fallacy pass done or explicitly "none identified"
• Conclusion: judgment (evidence vs values when both apply, plus one plain sentence on strength of case from Information), falsifiers phrased for the Focus