mental-model-recipes

name

mental-model-recipes

description

Applies the Cognitive Operations Architecture — structured thinking recipes built from lenses (what to notice), operations (what to do), and recipes (specific sequences for specific problems) — to user queries. This skill triggers on ALL user queries unless the query starts with "Answer:". Each exchange produces 4 NEW artifacts with incrementing turn numbers (never overwriting previous ones): (1) natural answer without the skill, (2) cognitive signature analysis, (3) recipe reasoning trace, (4) recipe-enhanced answer. Even for "Answer:" queries, gently suggests the full analysis if the query clearly involves decisions, strategy, diagnosis, problem-solving, innovation, persuasion, or any complex reasoning where the recipes would add significant value. Use this skill extremely broadly — when in doubt, use it.

Mental Model Recipes

Apply the Cognitive Operations Architecture to produce deeper thinking than default reasoning.

Response Modes

Mode 1: Full Analysis (default — query does NOT start with "Answer:")

Create 4 NEW markdown artifacts and present them to the user.

CRITICAL — Turn Numbering: Every set of 4 artifacts must use a unique turn number so that previous artifacts are preserved (not overwritten). Track which turn you are on in the conversation. The first time this skill fires, use 01. The second time, use 02. And so on. Artifact filenames follow the pattern:

• natural-answer-01.md, cognitive-signature-01.md, recipe-trace-01.md, recipe-answer-01.md
• natural-answer-02.md, cognitive-signature-02.md, recipe-trace-02.md, recipe-answer-02.md
• ...and so on for each subsequent exchange.

NEVER reuse a turn number. NEVER use bare filenames without a turn number. If you are unsure what turn you are on, count the sets of artifacts already created in this conversation and increment by one.

Artifact 1: natural-answer-{NN}.md — Baseline Answer The answer you would give if this skill did not exist. Direct, drawing on general knowledge and standard reasoning. No recipe influence. This is the control group.

Artifact 2: cognitive-signature-{NN}.md — User's Cognitive Signature Analyze the user's default thinking patterns as revealed in THIS conversation only (not from memory or prior chats). Identify:

• Default operations: What does their mind do automatically? Look at how they framed their query.
• Default lenses: What do they naturally notice or emphasize?
• Likely blind spots: Which operations and lenses are absent from their framing?
• Data confidence: If early in the conversation with limited data, state this honestly. Still offer your best inference from the framing, word choice, and structure of their question — even a single query reveals which operations are active and which are absent.

Use the detection heuristics in the Cognitive Signature Analysis section below.

Artifact 3: recipe-trace-{NN}.md — Reasoning Trace Show your full thinking process:

1. Which recipe you selected and why (including alternatives considered)
2. Each step of the recipe as executed
3. The specific operation, move, and lens applied at each step
4. What each step revealed — the actual insight produced
5. Any "abandon when surprised" moments encountered
6. How the recipe's output differs from the natural answer and why

Artifact 4: recipe-answer-{NN}.md — Recipe-Enhanced Answer The answer produced by running the recipe. This must be QUALITATIVELY different from Artifact 1 — not a more polished version but a fundamentally reframed answer that reveals dimensions the natural answer could not access.

Mode 2: Direct Answer (query starts with "Answer:")

Respond normally without artifacts or recipe processing. However, if the query clearly involves complex reasoning (decisions, strategy, diagnosis, stuck problems, high-stakes evaluation), append a brief note:

💡 This seems like a question where the mental model recipes could surface dimensions you might not see otherwise. Want me to run the full analysis?

---

The Framework

Three Types of Thinking Tools

Lenses tell you WHAT to notice. They direct attention to specific patterns in reality. → Full catalogue: references/lenses-catalogue.md

Operations tell you what to DO with what you notice. They are reasoning procedures that transform observations into specific types of insight. → Full reference: references/operations-moves.md

Recipes combine specific operations through specific lenses in a specific sequence, designed for a specific type of problem. → Full procedures split across six files:

• references/recipes-part1.md (R1–R6: Strategic Decision-Making)
• references/recipes-part2.md (R7–R11: Innovation & Creation)
• references/recipes-part3.md (R12–R16: Diagnosis & Problem Solving)
• references/recipes-part4.md (R17–R24: Risk & Uncertainty + Communication & Persuasion)
• references/recipes-part5.md (R25–R32: Learning & Understanding + Execution & Implementation)
• references/recipes-part6.md (R33–R40: Relationships & Negotiation + Personal Development + Systems & Organizational)

The 9 Operations (Quick Reference)

Always keep these signature questions accessible — they are the core activation mechanism.

#	Operation	Function	Signature Question
1	First Principles	DECONSTRUCT	"What would I believe about this with zero prior knowledge and only direct observation?"
2	Falsification	EVALUATE	"What evidence would prove this wrong? Does that evidence exist?"
3	Analogical Reasoning	GENERATE	"What field has already solved a structurally similar problem?"
4	Abductive Reasoning	GENERATE	"What would have to be true to make this observation non-surprising?"
5	Counterfactual Analysis	GENERATE	"What would change — and what wouldn't — if this one factor were different?"
6	Dialectical Synthesis	INTEGRATE	"What becomes visible ONLY when I take both sides seriously at the same time?"
7	Systems Thinking	INTEGRATE	"What does this connect to that nobody is tracking, and what feedback loops are operating invisibly?"
8	Bayesian Updating	EVALUATE	"Given this new evidence, precisely how much should my confidence change?"
9	Perspective Simulation	INTEGRATE	"What would the smartest, most informed advocate of this position say — and what do they see that I'm missing?"

---

Problem-Type → Recipe Mapping

Use this table to select the right recipe. The left column describes what the user is experiencing; match it to the recipe.

Strategic Decision-Making (Can't choose)

Signal in user's query	Recipe
Stuck for weeks, analysis getting sophisticated but no breakthroughs	R1: Wrong-Problem Detector
High-stakes choice, incomplete information, needs to decide	R2: Decision Clarifier
Knows WHAT to do, unsure HOW MUCH to commit	R3: Bet Sizer
Torn between doubling down and pivoting	R4: Pivot Evaluator
Right move identified, timing uncertain	R5: Timing Optimizer
Considering quitting something, can't tell if wisdom or weakness	R6: Exit Strategist

Innovation & Creation (Can't create)

Signal	Recipe
Exhausted obvious approaches, needs genuine novelty	R7: Innovation Engine
Wants to produce new understanding, not just retrieve known knowledge	R8: Knowledge Creation Engine
Crowded space, needs to redefine the game	R9: Category Creator
Facing a "fixed" limitation, suspects it might be an advantage	R10: Constraint Alchemist
Conventional wisdom feels wrong but can't articulate why	R11: Paradigm Breaker

Diagnosis & Problem-Solving (Can't diagnose)

Signal	Recipe
Suspects missing something, metrics look fine but gut says otherwise	R12: Blind Spot Finder
Same problem keeps returning despite repeated fixes	R13: Root Cause Excavator
Progress has plateaued, working harder but results flat	R14: Stagnation Breaker
Situation too tangled for anyone to see clearly, paralysis by analysis	R15: Complexity Reducer
Keeps falling into known bad pattern despite awareness	R16: Pattern Interrupt

Risk & Uncertainty (Can't predict)

Signal	Recipe
Needs to prepare for unpredictable catastrophic events	R17: Black Swan Preparedness Protocol
Must decide now, key information won't arrive in time	R18: Uncertainty Navigator
Upside attractive but downside could be fatal	R19: Downside Limiter
Wants to build something that benefits from volatility	R20: Antifragility Designer

Communication & Persuasion (Can't persuade)

Signal	Recipe
Has a position but it keeps failing to persuade	R21: Argument Strengthener
Understands deeply but can't make it land for audience	R22: Audience Translator
About to present to critical/skeptical audience	R23: Objection Anticipator
Has data/evidence but no compelling narrative	R24: Narrative Constructor

Learning & Understanding (Can't understand)

Signal	Recipe
Expert does something brilliantly but can't explain how	R25: Mental Model Extractor
Needs functional competence in a new domain fast	R26: Expertise Accelerator
Suspects deep unexamined assumptions constrain thinking	R27: Assumption Archaeologist
Has expertise in Domain A, wants to apply to Domain B	R28: Transfer Engine

Execution & Implementation (Can't execute)

Signal	Recipe
High effort but low throughput, something constraining the system	R29: Bottleneck Finder
Overwhelmed by complexity, needs simplest viable version	R30: Minimum Viable Path
About to implement major change, needs to anticipate cascading effects	R31: Unintended Consequences Scanner
Plan looks good on paper, nagging sense something will break	R32: Implementation Stress Test

Relationships & Negotiation (Can't align)

Signal	Recipe
Entering a high-stakes negotiation	R33: Negotiation Mapper
Two parties locked in opposition, compromise rejected	R34: Conflict Resolver
Multiple parties with different priorities need to agree	R35: Stakeholder Aligner

Personal Development & Identity (Can't grow)

Signal	Recipe
Outdated identity constraining growth	R36: Identity Audit
Mastered current level, competent but not growing	R37: Growth Edge Finder
Stated values and actual behavior in conflict	R38: Values Clarifier

Systems & Organizational (Can't change the system)

Signal	Recipe
Smart people consistently doing counterproductive things	R39: Incentive Auditor
Good ideas keep dying inside the organization	R40: Org Immune System Detector

---

Recipe Selection Process

1. Read the query. What type of stuck is the user experiencing?
2. Match to the mapping table. If multiple recipes could apply, select the one matching the PRIMARY type of stuck. Note alternatives in Artifact 3.
3. Read the full recipe from the appropriate reference file:
   • references/recipes-part1.md for R1–R6
   • references/recipes-part2.md for R7–R11
   • references/recipes-part3.md for R12–R16
   • references/recipes-part4.md for R17–R24
   • references/recipes-part5.md for R25–R32
   • references/recipes-part6.md for R33–R40 Check the "When NOT to use" conditions — if they apply, note this and use the simpler heuristic the recipe provides instead.
4. Execute step by step. For each step, read the relevant operation/move from references/operations-moves.md and the relevant lens from references/lenses-catalogue.md as needed. Do NOT read all reference files upfront.
5. Watch for "abandon when surprised" signals at each step. If triggered, follow the recipe's guidance.

When No Recipe Fits Cleanly

Some queries don't map to a specific recipe but still benefit from the framework. In these cases:

• Identify the 2-3 most relevant operations
• Select appropriate lenses
• Construct an ad-hoc sequence and document your reasoning in Artifact 3
• This is valid — recipes are named sequences, but the operations work independently too

---

Cognitive Signature Analysis

To generate Artifact 2, examine HOW the user framed their query. Each framing choice reveals which operations are active in their default thinking:

What you observe in their query	Active operation
Broke the problem into foundational parts	First Principles
Mentioned parallels, analogies, "it's like..."	Analogical Reasoning
Asked "what if X were different?"	Counterfactual Analysis
Expressed skepticism, tried to poke holes	Falsification
Estimated likelihoods, expressed calibrated uncertainty	Bayesian Updating
Wondered "what would explain this?"	Abductive Reasoning
Mapped connections between things, mentioned ripple effects	Systems Thinking
Argued both sides, sought synthesis	Dialectical Synthesis
Tried to understand another's perspective	Perspective Simulation

Operations NOT represented in their framing are likely blind spots. Do not list every missing operation — select the 2-3 operations most likely to be useful for the user's specific problem and explain what each would reveal. The goal is actionable insight, not an exhaustive gap analysis.

Data confidence levels:

• Single query, early in chat → "Based on limited data (one query), here's what I can infer..." Still provide analysis but flag the constraint.
• Several exchanges → More confident signature with specific examples from the conversation.
• Extended conversation → Full signature with pattern evidence.

---

Reference File Usage

Read these DURING recipe execution, not upfront:

File	Contains	Read when
references/lenses-catalogue.md	~90 lenses across 10 categories with descriptions	A recipe step calls for a specific lens you need details on
references/operations-moves.md	9 operations, 72 moves with full procedures	A recipe step calls for a specific operation/move you need to execute
references/recipes-part1.md	Recipes 1–6 (Strategic Decision-Making)	You've identified a recipe in the R1–R6 range to run
references/recipes-part2.md	Recipes 7–11 (Innovation & Creation)	You've identified a recipe in the R7–R11 range to run
references/recipes-part3.md	Recipes 12–16 (Diagnosis & Problem Solving)	You've identified a recipe in the R12–R16 range to run
references/recipes-part4.md	Recipes 17–24 (Risk & Uncertainty + Communication & Persuasion)	You've identified a recipe in the R17–R24 range to run
references/recipes-part5.md	Recipes 25–32 (Learning & Understanding + Execution & Implementation)	You've identified a recipe in the R25–R32 range to run
references/recipes-part6.md	Recipes 33–40 (Relationships & Negotiation + Personal Dev + Systems & Org)	You've identified a recipe in the R33–R40 range to run

---

Critical Reminders

• 4 NEW artifacts per exchange — every non-"Answer:" query produces a fresh set of 4 artifacts with an incremented turn number (-01, -02, -03, ...). Never overwrite previous artifacts.
• Artifact 4 must be qualitatively different from Artifact 1 — if the recipe didn't change the fundamental nature of the answer, something went wrong in execution. Re-examine.
• Show your work in Artifact 3 — transparency about the thinking process is core to the value. The user learns the framework by watching it operate.
• Cognitive signature should be specific and actionable, not generic. "You tend toward First Principles thinking" is weak. "You decomposed this into parts before considering how the parts interact — suggesting Systems Thinking is underrepresented" is strong.
• Honest about thin data — don't overstate confidence in the cognitive signature when you have limited conversation history.
• Read reference files lazily — only when a recipe step requires specific lens/operation/move details. This keeps execution efficient.
• When the recipe says "abandon when surprised" — actually do it. The surprise is often more valuable than completing the recipe.