Skip to main content

extended-thinking-architect

This skill should be used when the user asks to "decide reasoning effort", "set a thinking budget", "when to use extended thinking", "tune reasoning vs cost", or "should this task use a reasoning model".

Quellinformationen

Repository
borghei/Claude-Skills
Letzte Quellaktivität
27. September 2026 um 19:17
Erkannte Sprache von SKILL.md
Englisch
Sterne
879
Forks
161

Installationsoptionen

Standardmäßig ist der Prompt ausgewählt, der zuerst die Quelle prüft. Sie können zu einem direkten Befehl wechseln oder eine lokale Kopie herunterladen.

Quelldateien prüfen

Lesen Sie SKILL.md und alle von SkillsMP angezeigten Begleitdateien, bevor Sie sich für eine Installation entscheiden.

Datei-Explorer
5 Dateien

SKILL.md wird angezeigt

SKILL.md
Quellanweisungen · Schreibgeschützte Vorschau
name
extended-thinking-architect
description
This skill should be used when the user asks to "decide reasoning effort", "set a thinking budget", "when to use extended thinking", "tune reasoning vs cost", or "should this task use a reasoning model".
license
MIT + Commons Clause
metadata
{"version":"1.0.0","author":"borghei","category":"engineering","domain":"ai-engineering","updated":"2026-06-29T00:00:00.000Z","tags":["extended-thinking","reasoning-effort","llm","cost-optimization","agents"]}
# Extended Thinking Architect > **Category:** Engineering > **Domain:** AI Engineering ## Overview The **Extended Thinking Architect** skill helps you decide *when* an LLM task should spend a reasoning/thinking budget, *how much* (no-thinking / low / medium / high), and when the better move is a cheaper model with a sharper prompt instead. It turns task signals — error cost, ambiguity, step count, latency budget — into a deterministic recommendation with a rough cost multiplier, and allocates effort across the phases of an agent loop so you front-load reasoning where it pays and avoid runaway budgets. ## Clarify First Before recommending an effort level, confirm these inputs. If any is unknown or vague, ASK — do not assume: - [ ] **Task type & verifiability** — what the model is actually doing (extraction, classification, planning, code-debug, math…) and whether the output is checkable (sets `--task-type` and `--verifiable`) - [ ] **Cost of a wrong answer** — how expensive a bad output is, plus the latency budget the task must fit (sets `--error-cost` and `--latency-budget`) - [ ] **Shape of the work** — how many reasoning/tool steps are expected and how ambiguous the request is (sets `--steps` and `--ambiguity`) Stop rule: ask only the 2-3 that most change the output. If the user says "just draft it," proceed and list your assumptions at the top of the artifact. ## Quick Start ```bash # Recommend a reasoning effort level for a single task python scripts/reasoning_budget_advisor.py --task-type code-debug \ --error-cost high --steps 4 --ambiguity low --latency-budget interactive # A cheap, high-volume classification task — expect "cheaper model + better prompt" python scripts/reasoning_budget_advisor.py --task-type classification \ --error-cost low --latency-budget realtime --json # Allocate reasoning effort across the phases of an agent loop python scripts/reasoning_loop_allocator.py --difficulty high --steps 8 \ --max-budget-multiplier 30 # Tight-latency loop — see effort capped per phase python scripts/reasoning_loop_allocator.py --difficulty medium --steps 5 --realtime --json ``` ## Tools Overview | Tool | Purpose | Key Flags | |------|---------|-----------| | `reasoning_budget_advisor.py` | Recommend an effort level (none/low/medium/high) or "prompt-first / cheaper-model" for one task, with rationale + cost multiplier | `--task-type`, `--error-cost`, `--steps`, `--ambiguity`, `--latency-budget`, `--verifiable`, `--json` | | `reasoning_loop_allocator.py` | Allocate reasoning effort across agent-loop phases (plan/act/observe/recover/finalize) under a total budget cap | `--difficulty`, `--steps`, `--max-budget-multiplier`, `--realtime`, `--json` | ## Workflows ### Choosing Effort for a New Task 1. Identify the task type and whether the output is verifiable (ground truth or a checker exists). 2. Run `reasoning_budget_advisor.py` with the error cost, step count, ambiguity, and latency budget. 3. If the result is **prompt-first**, fix the prompt/spec (clarify, add examples) before spending any reasoning, then re-run. 4. If the result is **cheaper-model**, route to a smaller/faster model and invest the savings in a better prompt. 5. Otherwise adopt the recommended effort, note the cost multiplier, and set a per-call budget cap. ### Budgeting Reasoning Across an Agent Loop 1. Estimate overall task difficulty and the expected number of steps. 2. Run `reasoning_loop_allocator.py` to get per-phase effort (front-loaded at plan/recover, thin at act/observe). 3. Apply the total budget cap as a hard stop so a stuck loop cannot run away. 4. Instrument per-phase token spend; if observe/act phases consume high reasoning, that is an overthinking signal — clamp them. ## Reference Documentation - [When to Use Extended Thinking](references/when-to-use-extended-thinking.md) - Decision matrix of task classes where reasoning pays off vs. is wasted, interaction with tool use and agent loops, budget guards, overthinking failure modes, and eval signals. - [Reasoning Budget Patterns](references/reasoning-budget-patterns.md) - Allocation patterns, escalation ladders, caps and circuit breakers, and the cost/quality/latency tradeoff model. ## Common Patterns ### When Reasoning Pays Off - Multi-step deduction with a verifiable answer (math, constraint solving, debugging from a stack trace) - Planning and decomposition before a long agent run — front-load thinking once, not on every tool call - High error-cost decisions where a wrong answer is expensive to detect or undo ### When Reasoning Is Wasted - Extraction, classification, and formatting — deterministic mappings, not deduction; a cheaper model usually wins - Underspecified requests — extra thinking confidently elaborates on the wrong goal; fix the prompt first - Realtime/latency-tight paths where thinking tokens blow the budget more than they improve quality ### Guarding the Budget - Set a per-call effort cap *and* a loop-level total cap (e.g. a multiple of one no-thinking call) - Escalate effort only on failure (retry at higher effort), never start high "to be safe" - Treat reasoning spent on trivial sub-steps as a regression — alert on per-phase token spend
Auf GitHub ansehen