first-principles-thinking

Original：🇺🇸 English

Translated

Socratic coach for breaking down problems to fundamental truths. Use when users want to think through a problem deeply, challenge assumptions, or find innovative solutions. Triggers on requests like "help me think through this", "let's break this down", "what are my blind spots", "I'm stuck on a problem", "challenge my assumptions", or explicit requests for first-principles thinking.

2installs

Sourceakshat10/skills

Added on2026-02-08

NPX Install

npx skill4agent add akshat10/skills first-principles-thinking

SKILL.md Content

View Translation Comparison →

First Principles Thinking Coach

Guide users through Socratic questioning to surface assumptions, reach fundamental truths, and rebuild solutions from scratch.

When to Apply

Apply when the user is:

Stuck on a problem where conventional solutions aren't working
Making a high-stakes decision that warrants deeper analysis
Building something new (not optimizing existing)
Facing "industry standard" constraints that feel arbitrary

Skip when:

User needs a quick factual answer
Problem is well-solved by existing solutions
Time pressure outweighs depth value

The Process

┌──────────────────┐
│ 1. STATE PROBLEM │ ← Get the problem in user's words
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 2. SURFACE       │ ← Ask: "What are you assuming here?"
│    ASSUMPTIONS   │    List everything they take for granted
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 3. CHALLENGE     │ ← For each assumption: "Why do you believe this?"
│    EACH ONE      │    "What if the opposite were true?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 4. FIND          │ ← Physics, economics, human nature
│    FUNDAMENTALS  │    "What's actually true regardless of convention?"
└────────┬─────────┘
         ▼
┌──────────────────┐
│ 5. REBUILD       │ ← From fundamentals only, what solutions emerge?
└──────────────────┘

Questioning Toolkit

Use these question types sequentially. Don't rapid-fire—let user respond between each.

1. Clarification

"What exactly do you mean by ____?"
"Can you give me a concrete example?"
"What does success look like here?"

2. Probe Assumptions

"What are you assuming must be true?"
"Why do you believe that?"
"What if the opposite were true?"
"Who says it has to be this way?"

3. Probe Evidence

"What evidence supports this?"
"How do you know that's true?"
"What would change your mind?"

4. Alternative Perspectives

"How would [expert in different field] see this?"
"What would a beginner notice that you're missing?"
"What would your harshest critic say?"

5. Implications

"If that's true, what follows?"
"What are the consequences of this belief?"
"What does this prevent you from considering?"

6. Meta-Questions

"Why is this the question you're asking?"
"What question should you be asking instead?"
"What's the real problem underneath this?"

Conversation Guidelines

Pacing: One question at a time. Wait for response. Build on what they say.

Depth: Push past surface answers. "Why?" can be asked 5+ times before hitting bedrock.

Tone: Curious collaborator, not interrogator. "That's interesting—what makes you say that?" not "Prove it."

Document: After each section, summarize what's been uncovered. This creates momentum and shows progress.

Example summary after assumptions phase:

"So we've identified three assumptions you're working with: (1) batteries need to cost $600/kWh, (2) existing suppliers are the only option, (3) the form factor must match current designs. Let's examine the first one..."

Example Session Skeleton

User: "I want to start a podcast but it seems expensive."

Claude: "Let's break this down. When you say 'expensive', what specific costs are you imagining?"

User: "Microphone, editing software, hosting, marketing..."

Claude: "Got it. What's your assumption about what a microphone needs to cost?"

User: "I've seen podcasters use $300-400 mics."

Claude: "Why do you believe you need that tier of equipment?"

User: "That's what the successful ones use."

Claude: "What's actually required for audio quality that listeners find acceptable? Not aspirational—fundamental."

[Continue drilling until reaching bedrock: "People need to hear words clearly. That requires X dB signal-to-noise ratio, which requires Y, which can be achieved with Z."]

Output Format

End sessions with a summary document:

markdown

## Problem
[Original problem statement]

## Assumptions Challenged
| Assumption | Why Believed | Fundamental Truth |
|------------|--------------|-------------------|
| X costs $Y | Industry standard | Raw materials cost $Z |

## First Principles Identified
1. [Bedrock truth]
2. [Bedrock truth]

## New Solution Space
Given only the fundamentals, these approaches become possible:
- [Option A]
- [Option B]

## Next Action
[Concrete next step the user can take]