| name | problem-solving |
| version | 2.0.0 |
| description | [Utilities] Use when applying structured problem-solving frameworks to complex, blocked, recurring, or uncertain decisions. |
Quick Summary
Goal: Apply systematic problem-solving techniques matched to specific types of stuck-ness.
Workflow:
- Identify Stuck-Type — Match symptom to technique (complexity, innovation block, recurring pattern, assumption, scale)
- Load Reference — Read detailed technique guide from
references/
- Apply Systematically — Follow technique process; combine techniques if needed
- Document Insights — Record what worked/failed for future reference
Key Rules:
- Match symptom to technique: complexity spirals = Simplification Cascades, innovation blocks = Collision-Zone Thinking
- Multiple techniques can be combined (e.g., Simplification + Meta-pattern)
- "This problem is unique" is almost always wrong; look for meta-patterns
Be skeptical. Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence percentages (Idea should be more than 80%).
Problem-Solving Techniques
Systematic approaches for different types of stuck-ness. Each technique targets specific problem patterns.
When to Use
Apply when encountering:
- Complexity spiraling - Multiple implementations, growing special cases, excessive branching
- Innovation blocks - Conventional solutions inadequate, need breakthrough thinking
- Recurring patterns - Same issue across domains, reinventing solutions
- Assumption constraints - Forced into "only way", can't question premise
- Scale uncertainty - Production readiness unclear, edge cases unknown
- General stuck-ness - Unsure which technique applies
Quick Dispatch
Match symptom to technique:
| Stuck Symptom | Technique | Reference |
|---|
| Same thing implemented 5+ ways, growing special cases | Simplification Cascades | references/simplification-cascades.md |
| Conventional solutions inadequate, need breakthrough | Collision-Zone Thinking | references/collision-zone-thinking.md |
| Same issue in different places, reinventing wheels | Meta-Pattern Recognition | references/meta-pattern-recognition.md |
| Solution feels forced, "must be done this way" | Inversion Exercise | references/inversion-exercise.md |
| Will this work at production? Edge cases unclear? | Scale Game | references/scale-game.md |
| Unsure which technique to use | When Stuck | references/when-stuck.md |
Core Techniques
1. Simplification Cascades
Find one insight eliminating multiple components. "If this is true, we don't need X, Y, Z."
Key insight: Everything is a special case of one general pattern.
Red flag: "Just need to add one more case..." (repeating forever)
2. Collision-Zone Thinking
Force unrelated concepts together to discover emergent properties. "What if we treated X like Y?"
Key insight: Revolutionary ideas from deliberate metaphor-mixing.
Red flag: "I've tried everything in this domain"
3. Meta-Pattern Recognition
Spot patterns appearing in 3+ domains to find universal principles.
Key insight: Patterns in how patterns emerge reveal reusable abstractions.
Red flag: "This problem is unique" (probably not)
4. Inversion Exercise
Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints. "What if the opposite were true?"
Key insight: Valid inversions reveal context-dependence of "rules."
Red flag: "There's only one way to do this"
5. Scale Game
Test at extremes (1000x bigger/smaller, instant/year-long) to expose fundamental truths.
Key insight: What works at one scale fails at another.
Red flag: "Should scale fine" (without testing)
Application Process
- Identify stuck-type - Match symptom to technique above
- Load detailed reference - Read specific technique from
references/
- Apply systematically - Follow technique's process
- Document insights - Record what worked/failed
- Combine if needed - Some problems need multiple techniques
Combining Techniques
Powerful combinations:
- Simplification + Meta-pattern - Find pattern, then simplify all instances
- Collision + Inversion - Force metaphor, then invert its assumptions
- Scale + Simplification - Extremes reveal what to eliminate
- Meta-pattern + Scale - Universal patterns tested at extremes
References
Load detailed guides as needed:
references/when-stuck.md - Dispatch flowchart and decision tree
references/simplification-cascades.md - Cascade detection and extraction
references/collision-zone-thinking.md - Metaphor collision process
references/meta-pattern-recognition.md - Pattern abstraction techniques
references/inversion-exercise.md - Assumption flipping methodology
references/scale-game.md - Extreme testing procedures
references/attribution.md - Source and adaptation notes
[IMPORTANT] Use TaskCreate to break ALL work into small tasks BEFORE starting — including tasks for each file read. This prevents context loss from long files. For simple tasks, AI MUST ATTENTION ask user whether to skip.
AI Mistake Prevention — Failure modes to avoid on every task:
Re-read files after context changes. Context compaction, resume, or long-running work can make memory stale; verify current files before acting.
Verify generated content against source evidence. AI hallucinates APIs, names, claims, and document facts. Check the relevant source before documenting or referencing.
Check downstream references before deleting or renaming. Removing an artifact can stale docs, generated mirrors, configs, and callers; map references first.
Trace the full impact chain after edits. Changing a definition can miss derived outputs and consumers. Follow the affected chain before declaring done.
Verify ALL affected outputs, not just the first. One green check is not all green checks; validate every output surface the change can affect.
Assume existing values are intentional — ask WHY before changing. Before changing a constant, limit, flag, wording, or pattern, read nearby context and history.
Surface ambiguity before acting — don't pick silently. Multiple valid interpretations require an explicit question or stated assumption with risk.
Keep shared guidance role-relevant. Universal guidance must help every receiving skill or agent; code-specific obligations belong only in code-specific protocols.
Critical Thinking Mindset — Apply critical thinking, sequential thinking. Every claim needs traced proof, confidence >80% to act.
Anti-hallucination: Never present guess as fact — cite sources for every claim, admit uncertainty freely, self-check output for errors, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence — certainty without evidence root of all hallucination.
Sequential Thinking Protocol — Structured multi-step reasoning for complex/ambiguous work. Use when planning, reviewing, debugging, or refining ideas where one-shot reasoning is unsafe.
Trigger when: complex problem decomposition · adaptive plans needing revision · analysis with course correction · unclear/emerging scope · multi-step solutions · hypothesis-driven debugging · cross-cutting trade-off evaluation.
Format (explicit mode — visible thought trail):
Thought N/M: [aspect] — one aspect per thought, state assumptions/uncertainty
Thought N/M [REVISION of Thought K]: ... — when prior reasoning invalidated; state Original / Why revised / Impact
Thought N/M [BRANCH A from Thought K]: ... — explore alternative; converge with decision rationale
Thought N/M [HYPOTHESIS]: ... then [VERIFICATION]: ... — test before acting
Thought N/N [FINAL] — only when verified, all critical aspects addressed, confidence >80%
Mandatory closers: Confidence % stated · Assumptions listed · Open questions surfaced · Next action concrete.
Stop conditions: confidence <80% on any critical decision → escalate via AskUserQuestion · ≥3 revisions on same thought → re-frame the problem · branch count >3 → split into sub-task.
Implicit mode: apply methodology internally without visible markers when adding markers would clutter the response (routine work where reasoning aids accuracy).
Deep-dive: see /sequential-thinking skill (.claude/skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md) for worked examples (API design, debugging, architecture), advanced techniques (spiral refinement, hypothesis testing, convergence), and meta-strategies (uncertainty handling, revision cascades).
MUST ATTENTION apply critical + sequential thinking — every claim needs appropriate traced evidence (file:line for repo/code claims; source URL or artifact section for research, product, content, and docs claims); confidence >80% to act, <60% DO NOT recommend. Anti-hallucination: never present guess as fact, admit uncertainty freely, cross-reference independently, stay skeptical of own confidence.
MUST ATTENTION apply sequential-thinking — multi-step Thought N/M, REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers, confidence % closer; see /sequential-thinking skill.
MUST ATTENTION apply AI mistake prevention — verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references before deleting or renaming, verify all affected outputs, re-read files after context loss, and surface ambiguity before acting.
Closing Reminders
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION break work into small todo tasks using TaskCreate BEFORE starting
MUST ATTENTION Protocols in force (concise digest of the SYNC/shared blocks this skill carries):
- AI Mistake Prevention: verify generated content against evidence, trace downstream references, verify all affected outputs, re-read after context loss, surface ambiguity.
- Critical Thinking: traced
file:line proof per claim; confidence >80% to act, never guess as fact.
- Sequential Thinking: multi-step Thought N/M with REVISION/BRANCH/HYPOTHESIS markers and confidence closer.
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION search codebase for 3+ similar patterns before creating new code
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION cite file:line evidence for every claim (confidence >80% to act)
IMPORTANT MUST ATTENTION add a final review todo task to verify work quality
[TASK-PLANNING] Before acting, analyze task scope and systematically break it into small todo tasks and sub-tasks using TaskCreate.