Menu
Structured thinking toolkit combining Critical Evaluation, Diverge-Converge Brainstorming, and Deep Questioning frameworks for creative problem-solving. Use when generating ideas or evaluating proposals.
Install with Codex or Claude Copy this prompt, paste it into Codex, Claude, or another assistant, and let it review the skill page and install it for you.
Based on SOC occupation classification
Intent-First design craft specialist covering design direction, domain vocabulary, design memory, and post-build critique. Use when establishing design intent or auditing code against design principles.
Design tool integration specialist covering Figma MCP, Pencil renderer, and Pencil-to-code export. Use when fetching design context from Figma, rendering Pencil designs, or exporting to React/Tailwind code.
Documentation generation patterns for technical specs, API docs, user guides, and knowledge bases using real tools like Sphinx, MkDocs, TypeDoc, and Nextra. Use when creating docs from code, building doc sites, or automating documentation workflows.
Backend development specialist covering API design, database integration, microservices architecture, and modern backend patterns. Use when designing APIs, implementing server logic, authentication, or authorization.
Brand-aligned visual design system specialist for web projects. Enforces hero-first layout chaining, WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility, Lighthouse >= 80, and design token extraction from brand identity files. Covers color palettes, typography, spacing, and component specifications.
Brand-aligned copywriting specialist for marketing and product text. Enforces brand voice, anti-AI-slop rules, concrete numbers, and JSON section structure for downstream agent consumption. Covers hero, features, social_proof, cta, and footer sections with A/B variant output.
| name | moai-foundation-thinking |
| description | Structured thinking toolkit combining Critical Evaluation, Diverge-Converge Brainstorming, and Deep Questioning frameworks for creative problem-solving. Use when generating ideas or evaluating proposals. |
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| compatibility | Designed for Claude Code |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| user-invocable | false |
| metadata | {"version":"1.0.0","category":"foundation","status":"active","updated":"2026-02-10","modularized":"true","tags":"foundation, critical-thinking, brainstorming, ideation, evaluation, creative-thinking, diverge-converge","related-skills":"moai-foundation-philosopher"} |
| progressive_disclosure | {"enabled":true,"level1_tokens":100,"level2_tokens":5000} |
| triggers | {"keywords":["brainstorm","ideation","creative","evaluate","critical thinking","diverge","converge","generate ideas","explore options","question","deep analysis","problem exploration","solution space","scoring","clustering","prioritize"],"agents":["manager-strategy","manager-spec","team-reader"],"phases":["plan"]} |
Structured thinking toolkit for creative problem-solving and rigorous analysis. Integrates three complementary frameworks that cover the full spectrum from idea generation to critical evaluation.
Core Philosophy: Generate broadly, evaluate rigorously, question deeply. Creativity and criticism are complementary forces.
What is the Thinking Toolkit?
Three integrated frameworks for structured thinking:
When to Use Each Framework:
Quick Access:
Purpose: Systematically assess proposals, claims, and recommendations to detect flaws before commitment.
Seven-Step Evaluation Process:
Step 1 - Restate: Reformulate the claim or proposal in your own words. Ensures genuine understanding before critique.
Step 2 - Assess Evidence: Examine supporting data. Is the evidence empirical, anecdotal, or assumed? What is the sample size and recency? Are there contradicting data points?
Step 3 - Detect Fallacies: Check for common reasoning errors. Appeal to authority without substance. False dichotomy (only two options presented). Hasty generalization from insufficient examples. Straw man misrepresentation of alternatives.
Step 4 - Expose Assumptions: Identify unstated premises. What must be true for this conclusion to hold? Which assumptions are testable? Which assumptions carry the highest risk if wrong?
Step 5 - Note Alternatives: For every claim, ask what else could explain the evidence. Generate at least two alternative interpretations. Consider the null hypothesis.
Step 6 - Check Contradictions: Look for internal inconsistencies. Do different parts of the proposal conflict? Are there contradictions with known facts or constraints?
Step 7 - Evaluate Burden of Proof: Determine if the evidence is proportional to the claim. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Identify what additional evidence would strengthen or weaken the case.
Output Format:
WHY: Uncritical acceptance of proposals leads to preventable failures. IMPACT: Structured evaluation catches 60-80% of flawed recommendations.
Purpose: Generate a broad solution space then systematically narrow to the best options.
Five-Phase Process:
Phase 1 - Gather Requirements: Define the problem space clearly. Identify stakeholders and success criteria. Set explicit constraints (budget, timeline, technology). Document "must-have" vs "nice-to-have" criteria.
Phase 2 - Diverge (Generate 20-50 Ideas): Quantity over quality during divergence. No criticism or filtering during generation. Include wild and unconventional ideas. Combine and build upon previous ideas. Use prompts: "What if we...", "How might we...", "What would happen if..."
Phase 3 - Cluster (Group into 4-8 Themes): Identify natural groupings among ideas. Name each cluster with a descriptive theme. Note which clusters have the most ideas (signals interest). Identify gaps where no ideas exist (potential blind spots).
Phase 4 - Converge (Score and Select): Rate each cluster against success criteria (1-10). Apply weighted scoring based on priority of criteria. Select top 3-5 candidates for deeper analysis. Document why rejected options were eliminated.
Phase 5 - Document and Validate: Write up selected solutions with rationale. Define validation experiments for top candidates. Identify risks and mitigation strategies. Plan implementation sequence.
Output Format:
WHY: Premature convergence on the first idea leaves better solutions undiscovered. IMPACT: Teams using diverge-converge find 3x more viable solutions.
Purpose: Progressively uncover hidden requirements, constraints, and risks through layered inquiry.
Six-Layer Progressive Inquiry:
Layer 1 - Surface Understanding: What is the stated goal or request? What does success look like? What are the obvious inputs and outputs? Verify: Can I explain this to someone else clearly?
Layer 2 - Problem Depth: Why does this problem exist? What is the root cause vs symptom? What has been tried before and why did it fail? What would happen if we did nothing?
Layer 3 - Context and Constraints: What are the technical constraints? What are the organizational or process constraints? What are the time and resource limitations? What external dependencies exist?
Layer 4 - User Perspective: Who are the actual end users? What is their current workflow? What pain points drive this request? What would they consider a disappointing solution?
Layer 5 - Solution Exploration: What are the boundary conditions? What edge cases could break the solution? What are the performance requirements? How will this integrate with existing systems?
Layer 6 - Validation and Risk: How will we know if the solution works? What could go wrong? What is the rollback strategy? What monitoring or alerting is needed?
Progressive Depth Indicators:
Output Format:
WHY: Surface-level understanding leads to solutions that miss the real problem. IMPACT: Deep questioning reduces requirement changes by 40-60%.
For complex problems, use all three frameworks in sequence:
Step 1 - Deep Questioning: Explore the problem space (Layers 1-4 minimum) Step 2 - Diverge-Converge: Generate and select solutions based on discoveries Step 3 - Critical Evaluation: Rigorously assess the top candidates
Decision Complexity Guide:
Simple task (1-2 files): Skip thinking frameworks (direct implementation) Feature addition: Deep Questioning (Layers 1-3) + brief evaluation Design decision: Deep Questioning (full) + Diverge-Converge Architecture change: All three frameworks in full
SPEC Phase (/moai plan):
Run Phase (/moai run):
Agent Teams:
Agents:
Skills:
Commands:
Module Deep Dives:
External Resources: reference.md
Origin: Integrated from critical-thinking, brainstorm-diverge-converge, and ideation frameworks
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|---|
| "Brainstorming is for creative tasks, not engineering" | Engineering decisions have design space too. Diverge phase surfaces solutions that linear thinking misses. |
| "I already evaluated this critically, I do not need the framework" | Unstructured evaluation skips dimensions. The framework ensures completeness across all assessment axes. |
| "Deep questioning slows down the process" | Shallow answers produce shallow solutions. Deep questions reveal constraints the specification missed. |
| "Converging on the first good idea is efficient" | The first good idea is often a local optimum. Spending 5 minutes on alternatives can find a global optimum. |
| "This decision is reversible, I do not need rigorous thinking" | Reversible decisions still cost time to reverse. Rigorous thinking upfront prevents the reversal. |
