| name | first-principles |
| description | Use when the current approach feels fundamentally wrong, inherited constraints need questioning, or someone wants to reason from the ground up. Triggers on: "왜 이렇게 해야 해?", "기본부터 다시 생각해", "first principles", "가정을 의심해봐", 이 방식 자체가 맞는 건지", "처음부터 다시 |
| scenarios | ["왜 배포가 2주나 걸려야 해? 진짜 필수적인 단계가 뭐야?","배터리 비용이 왜 이렇게 비싸야 해? 원재료부터 생각해보자","Why does onboarding have to take 3 weeks?","이 아키텍처가 당연하다는 가정을 버리고 처음부터 설계하면 어때?","We keep optimizing the wrong thing — what do we actually know for certain?","레거시 제약 없이 설계하면 어떻게 될까?"] |
| compatibility | {"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":["mcp-reasoner"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 Lens A 분해(가정 열거)와 Lens C 합성(반론 테스트)을 체계적으로 수행할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."} |
| related | ["brainstorming","problem-reframer"] |
| license | MIT |
| metadata | {"author":"wondelai","version":"1.0.0"} |
First Principles Thinking
A framework for stripping away assumptions, analogies, and inherited constraints to reason from the ground up. Based on two complementary traditions: Aristotle's philosophical method of decomposing to irreducible truths, and the practical reconstruction approach used by Elon Musk, Charlie Munger, and the Farnam Street mental models community.
Core Principle
Most thinking is analogy-based. First principles thinking is the exception — and the competitive advantage. Reasoning by analogy means "this is like that, so we do what others do." Reasoning by first principles means "what do we actually know to be true? What can we build from that?" The former is fast and usually wrong in novel situations. The latter is slow and usually right.
The foundation: There are two paths. Path A: Aristotelian decomposition — identify the primary premises, the most fundamental things that cannot be derived from anything more basic. If you can question it, it's not a first principle yet. Path B: Practical reconstruction — Musk's approach of breaking down something into its raw materials and costs, then asking: "Could we build this from scratch, given what we actually know?" Path C synthesizes both: decompose to truth (A), reconstruct from truth (B), then challenge the reconstruction with adversarial questioning.
Scoring
Goal: 10/10. When analyzing a problem, assumption, or decision using first principles, rate the analysis 0-10. A 10/10 means the thinker has fully decomposed the assumption space (A), reconstructed from verifiable truths (B), and stress-tested the synthesis (C). Always provide the current score and specific improvements needed.
- 9-10: All assumptions surfaced, decomposed to verifiable truths, reconstruction is novel and well-supported
- 7-8: Good decomposition but reconstruction stays close to existing solutions; synthesis feedback is shallow
- 5-6: Some assumptions challenged, but analogical reasoning still dominant; "because that's how it's done" appears
- 3-4: Surface-level questioning without reaching foundational truths; first principles named but not applied
- 1-2: Pure analogy-based reasoning; inherited constraints accepted without examination
The Three Lenses
Lens A — Philosophical Decomposition (Aristotle)
Core concept: Aristotle held that knowledge rests on "primary premises" — facts so fundamental they cannot be derived from anything more basic. First principles thinking means tracing any claim, assumption, or constraint back to these irreducible truths. If you can still ask "but why?" — you haven't reached a first principle.
Why it works: Most constraints are inherited — from convention, past decisions, or "that's how the industry works." Decomposition forces you to separate what is physically or logically true from what is merely conventional. This creates a clean foundation from which genuinely new solutions become visible.
