| 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"]} |
MoAI Foundation Thinking
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.
Quick Reference
What is the Thinking Toolkit?
Three integrated frameworks for structured thinking:
- Critical Evaluation: Rigorous 7-step analysis to assess proposals and detect flaws
- Diverge-Converge: Systematic brainstorming from 20-50 raw ideas to 3-5 validated solutions
- Deep Questioning: 6-layer progressive inquiry to uncover hidden requirements and risks
When to Use Each Framework:
- Evaluating a proposal or recommendation: Critical Evaluation
- Generating solutions for an open-ended problem: Diverge-Converge
- Exploring an unfamiliar domain or unclear requirement: Deep Questioning
- Complex decisions: Combine all three (Question first, Generate second, Evaluate third)
Quick Access:
Implementation Guide
Framework 1: Critical Evaluation
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:
- Evaluation Summary: Overall assessment (Strong, Moderate, Weak, Flawed)
- Key Strengths: What holds up under scrutiny
- Critical Gaps: What needs more evidence or revision
- Recommended Actions: Next steps to strengthen the proposal
WHY: Uncritical acceptance of proposals leads to preventable failures.
IMPACT: Structured evaluation catches 60-80% of flawed recommendations.
Framework 2: Diverge-Converge Brainstorming
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:
- Problem Statement: Clear definition of what we are solving
- Idea Count: Total ideas generated and cluster distribution
- Top Candidates: 3-5 selected solutions with scores
- Validation Plan: How to test each candidate
WHY: Premature convergence on the first idea leaves better solutions undiscovered.
IMPACT: Teams using diverge-converge find 3x more viable solutions.
Framework 3: Deep Questioning
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:
- Shallow: Only Layers 1-2 explored (common in quick tasks)
- Moderate: Layers 1-4 explored (sufficient for most features)
- Deep: All 6 layers explored (required for architecture decisions)
- Exhaustive: All layers with multiple iterations (critical systems)
Output Format:
- Understanding Level: Shallow, Moderate, Deep, or Exhaustive
- Key Discoveries: Insights from each explored layer
- Open Questions: Remaining unknowns requiring further investigation
- Risk Assessment: Identified risks by severity
WHY: Surface-level understanding leads to solutions that miss the real problem.
IMPACT: Deep questioning reduces requirement changes by 40-60%.
Combined Workflow
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
Integration with MoAI Workflow
SPEC Phase (/moai plan):
- Apply Deep Questioning during requirements gathering
- Use Diverge-Converge for solution approach selection
- Apply Critical Evaluation to finalize SPEC document
Run Phase (/moai run):
- Use Critical Evaluation when reviewing implementation options
- Apply Deep Questioning when encountering unexpected complexity
Agent Teams:
- team-reader (analyst role): Primary user of Deep Questioning framework
- team-reader (architect role): Primary user of Critical Evaluation framework
- team-reader (researcher role): Uses all three for comprehensive analysis
Works Well With
Agents:
- manager-strategy: Combined with Philosopher for full decision framework
- manager-spec: Deep Questioning during requirement analysis
- team-reader (analyst role): Primary consumer for plan phase analysis
- team-reader (researcher role): Comprehensive research methodology
Skills:
- moai-foundation-philosopher: Complementary (Philosopher = strategic decisions, Thinking = creative analysis)
- moai-foundation-core: Integration with SPEC workflow
- moai-workflow-spec: Requirement documentation support
Commands:
- /moai plan: Apply thinking frameworks during specification
- /moai run: Reference during implementation decisions
Module Deep Dives:
External Resources: reference.md
Origin: Integrated from critical-thinking, brainstorm-diverge-converge, and ideation frameworks
Common Rationalizations
| 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. |
Red Flags
- Architecture decision documented with only one option considered
- Diverge phase produced fewer than 3 alternatives
- Converge phase selected an option without evaluation criteria
- Critical evaluation missing feasibility or risk dimension
- Deep questioning stopped after one level of "why"
Verification
