You are applying First Principles Thinking to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. List all underlying assumptions
2. Question each assumption: "Is this fundamentally true?"
3. Identify fundamental truths (cannot be broken down further)
4. Rebuild solution from fundamentals only
5. Compare rebuilt solution to original - what changed?

Output:
### First Principles Analysis

**Fundamental Truths:**
- [Truth 1]
- [Truth 2]

**Assumptions Challenged:**
1. [Assumption] - [Why it might be wrong]

**Improvements:**
- [Improvement based on fundamentals]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Pre-Mortem Analysis to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Fast-forward 6 months: the solution has failed spectacularly
2. List 5 reasons why it failed
3. For each reason, assess likelihood (Low/Medium/High)
4. For each high-likelihood failure, propose mitigation
5. Revise original solution with mitigations

Output:
### Pre-Mortem Analysis

**Failure Scenarios:**
1. [Scenario] - Likelihood: [L/M/H]
2. [Scenario] - Likelihood: [L/M/H]

**Mitigations:**
- [Mitigation for high-likelihood failures]

**Revised Solution:**
- [Changes to prevent failures]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Socratic Questioning to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Identify 5 key claims in the content
2. For each claim, ask "Why is this true?"
3. For the answer, ask "Why?" again
4. Repeat until you hit a contradiction or fundamental truth
5. Revise claims that don't survive questioning

Output:
### Socratic Analysis

**Claim 1:** [Claim]
- Why? [Answer]
- Why? [Answer]
- Why? [Answer]
- **Verdict:** [Survives/Needs revision]

**Improvements:**
- [Changes after questioning]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Red Team vs Blue Team to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. **Red Team**: List 5 ways to attack/break this solution
2. **Blue Team**: For each attack, propose a defense
3. **Red Team**: For each defense, find the weakness
4. **Blue Team**: Strengthen defenses
5. Synthesize: What changes make the solution more robust?

Output:
### Red Team vs Blue Team

**Attack 1:** [How to break it]
- Defense: [Blue team response]
- Counter-attack: [Red team finds weakness]
- Final defense: [Blue team strengthens]

**Improvements:**
- [Robust changes from adversarial testing]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Inversion to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Invert the goal: "How could we make this FAIL?"
2. List 5 ways to guarantee failure
3. For each failure mode, identify the opposite (success mode)
4. Check if original solution addresses success modes
5. Revise to explicitly avoid failure modes

Output:
### Inversion Analysis

**How to Fail:**
1. [Failure mode]
2. [Failure mode]

**How to Succeed (inverses):**
1. [Success mode]

**Improvements:**
- [Changes to avoid failures]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Second-Order Thinking to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Identify immediate consequences (1st order)
2. For each consequence, identify follow-on effects (2nd order)
3. For each 2nd order effect, identify further effects (3rd order)
4. Assess whether long-term effects align with goals
5. Revise solution to optimize for 2nd/3rd order effects

Output:
### Second-Order Analysis

**1st Order:** [Immediate effect]
- **2nd Order:** [Consequence of consequence]
  - **3rd Order:** [Further consequence]

**Long-Term Implications:**
- [Good/Bad long-term effects]

**Improvements:**
- [Changes optimizing for long-term]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying SWOT Analysis to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. **Strengths**: What are the advantages?
2. **Weaknesses**: What are the disadvantages?
3. **Opportunities**: What external factors could help?
4. **Threats**: What external factors could harm?
5. Synthesize: How to leverage S+O, mitigate W+T?

Output:
### SWOT Analysis

**Strengths:**
- [Internal advantage]

**Weaknesses:**
- [Internal disadvantage]

**Opportunities:**
- [External positive factor]

**Threats:**
- [External negative factor]

**Strategy:**
- [Leverage strengths/opportunities, mitigate weaknesses/threats]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Opportunity Cost to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. List what this solution requires (time, money, people)
2. List 3 alternative uses for those resources
3. For each alternative, estimate value
4. Compare: Is this solution the highest-value use?
5. If not, propose reallocation

Output:
### Opportunity Cost Analysis

**Resources Required:**
- [Time/Money/People]

**Alternatives:**
1. [Alternative use] - Estimated value: [X]
2. [Alternative use] - Estimated value: [Y]

**Verdict:**
- [Is this the best use? Why/why not?]

**Improvements:**
- [Reallocations or justifications]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Analogical Reasoning to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Identify the core problem (abstract it)
2. Find 3 analogous situations (other domains/times)
3. How was the analogous problem solved?
4. What lessons transfer to this situation?
5. Adapt the solution based on analogies

Output:
### Analogical Analysis

**Core Problem:** [Abstract problem statement]

**Analogy 1:** [Domain/situation]
- How they solved it: [Solution]
- Lesson: [What transfers]

**Improvements:**
- [Adapted solution from analogies]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Constraint Relaxation to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. List all constraints (explicit and implicit)
2. For each constraint, ask: "What if this wasn't true?"
3. Design solution without that constraint
4. Assess: Can we actually relax this constraint?
5. If yes, propose new solution. If no, learn from the thought experiment.

Output:
### Constraint Relaxation

**Constraint:** [Constraint]
- **If removed:** [Solution without constraint]
- **Can we actually relax it?** [Yes/No + reasoning]

**Improvements:**
- [Creative solutions from relaxation]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying FMEA to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. List all components/steps in the solution
2. For each, identify potential failure modes
3. Rate each: Severity (1-10), Likelihood (1-10)
4. Calculate Risk Priority Number (RPN = Severity × Likelihood)
5. Address high-RPN failures first

Output:
### FMEA

**Failure Mode 1:** [What fails]
- Severity: [1-10]
- Likelihood: [1-10]
- RPN: [Product]
- Mitigation: [How to prevent/detect/recover]

**Improvements:**
- [Prioritized mitigations for high-RPN failures]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Bias Check to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Review common cognitive biases (confirmation, anchoring, sunk cost, availability, etc.)
2. For each bias, ask: "Is this affecting my reasoning?"
3. Find evidence of bias in the original content
4. Correct for identified biases
5. Re-evaluate the solution bias-free

Output:
### Bias Check

**Bias Detected:** [Bias name]
- **Evidence:** [Where it appears]
- **Correction:** [Adjusted reasoning]

**Improvements:**
- [Bias-free solution]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Base Rate Thinking to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Identify the reference class (similar past situations)
2. What's the base rate (average outcome for reference class)?
3. Why might this case be different?
4. Adjust estimates toward base rate (Bayesian update)
5. Revise solution with realistic expectations

Output:
### Base Rate Analysis

**Reference Class:** [Similar situations]
- **Base Rate:** [Typical outcome]
- **Our Estimate:** [Original estimate]
- **Adjusted Estimate:** [Reality-checked estimate]

**Improvements:**
- [More realistic solution]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Steelmanning to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Identify the opposing view (or alternative approach)
2. Strengthen it: What's the BEST argument against your solution?
3. Address the strong version (not a weak strawman)
4. If the steelman wins, adopt that approach
5. If your solution survives, it's stronger

Output:
### Steelman Analysis

**Opposing View:** [Alternative]
- **Strongest Argument:** [Best case for alternative]
- **Response:** [Addressing the strong version]
- **Verdict:** [Which approach is better?]

**Improvements:**
- [Refined solution after facing steelman]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

You are applying Time Horizon Shift to:

---
{content}
---

Steps:
1. Evaluate solution at 1 hour: [Impact]
2. Evaluate at 1 day: [Impact]
3. Evaluate at 1 month: [Impact]
4. Evaluate at 1 year: [Impact]
5. Evaluate at 5 years: [Impact]
6. Identify time-horizon-dependent trade-offs
7. Optimize for the right time horizon

Output:
### Time Horizon Analysis

**1 Hour:** [Short-term effect]
**1 Day:** [Effect]
**1 Month:** [Effect]
**1 Year:** [Effect]
**5 Years:** [Long-term effect]

**Trade-Offs:**
- [Short vs long-term conflicts]

**Improvements:**
- [Optimized for appropriate horizon]

**Confidence Level:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]

Skill({ skill: 'advanced-elicitation', args: 'first-principles' });

Skill({ skill: 'advanced-elicitation', args: 'first-principles,pre-mortem,red-team-blue-team' });

Skill({ skill: 'advanced-elicitation', args: 'auto' });
// Automatically picks 2-3 methods based on content analysis

// After generating spec
Skill({ skill: 'spec-critique', args: 'with-elicitation' });
// Applies elicitation to critique process

features:
  advancedElicitation:
    enabled: true
    costBudget: 10.0 # USD per session
    minConfidence: 0.7 # Skip if confidence high
    maxMethodsPerInvocation: 5 # SEC-AE-001
    maxInvocationsPerSession: 10 # SEC-AE-003

We should use microservices with 12 services communicating via REST.

Fundamental truths: Services must communicate, data must be consistent.
Challenged assumption: "12 services" - is this the right granularity?
Could 6 bounded contexts suffice?

Improvement: Consolidate to 6-8 services by bounded context.
Use gRPC internally (40% latency reduction vs REST).

JWT tokens for authentication across services.

Red Team Attack: Token theft via XSS, JWT validation on every call (latency).
Blue Team Defense: HttpOnly cookies, service mesh mTLS instead of JWT propagation.

Improvement: Use service mesh (Istio) for security instead of JWT propagation.

Feature: User can delete their account.

Failure Scenario: 6 months later, GDPR compliance audit fails.
Cause: Deletion didn't cascade to all systems (analytics, backups).

Improvement: Add "Data Retention Audit" requirement.
Specify cascade delete to all systems within 30 days.

cat .claude/context/memory/learnings.md