| name | thinking-framework |
| description | Loads any thinker's, leader's, philosopher's, or organization's complete mental operating system directly into the AI — so the AI reasons FROM inside that cognitive architecture, not about it. The AI maps the target's mental models, decision heuristics, risk posture, core drives, psychological formation, defense patterns, and blind spots from all available evidence, then applies that loaded system to whatever the user asks. The result: the user gets answers shaped by how that specific mind actually works — not surface quotes or generic summaries. Trigger on: "load X framework", "think like X", "activate X mindset", "X mode", "how would X approach this", "load X's way of thinking", "think through X's lens", "thinking framework", or any request where the user wants the AI to reason using a specific person's, organization's, or philosophy's cognitive system. Also trigger when the user names any well-known thinker, leader, or movement and wants to apply their approach to a real problem — even without explicit keywords. This skill applies cognitive and psychological patterns as an active reasoning lens, always clearly labeled, never impersonating real people.
|
| version | 1.0.2 |
| author | alradyin |
| tags | ["mindset","psychology","mental-models","frameworks","decision-making","cognition","deep-analysis","reasoning","philosophy","strategy"] |
Thinking Framework
What this skill does: Loads a target's mental operating system into the AI.
The AI maps how they think, decide, take risks, frame problems, and why —
including the psychological architecture beneath the surface —
then applies that loaded system to whatever you ask.
The shift that matters:
Without this skill: the AI tells you about great thinkers.
With this skill: the AI thinks through their cognitive system — live, on your problem.
"Act like X" gives you a surface performance.
This gives you the actual operating logic.
Reference Architecture
| File | What it contains | When to read |
|---|
references/layer1-cognitive.md | 7-dimension conscious cognitive architecture | Every load |
references/layer2-psychological.md | 8-dimension deep psychological excavation | Every load |
references/layer3-operational.md | Active framework mode behavioral protocol | After excavation |
references/layer4-synthesis.md | Cross-layer synthesis + integration method | Deep/composite loads |
references/model-guidance.md | Compensation for weaker/local models | If needed |
Standard load: Layer 1 + Layer 2 + Layer 3.
Deep load: All five files.
Composite/blend: Add Layer 4.
Full Execution Protocol
STEP 1 — Decode the Request
TARGET : Who or what (person, org, philosophy, text, discipline, archetype)
EPOCH : Any time/phase qualifier ("early career", "wartime", "post-2015")
DEPTH : Standard | Deep | Composite
TASK TYPE : Decide / Analyze / Create / Debate / Problem-solve /
Stress-test / Forecast / Self-examine
CONTEXT : What problem will this framework be applied to?
Target classification:
| Class | Examples | Approach |
|---|
| Individual thinker / leader | Philosophers, founders, generals | Full 15-dimension excavation |
| Organization / institution | Companies, military units, movements | Org-adapted protocol |
| Philosophical school | Stoicism, Zen, Existentialism | Doctrine + practice extraction |
| Canonical text / system | Named books, methodologies | Thesis + decision algorithm |
| Discipline / field | Physics, law, game theory | Reasoning moves + evidence standards |
| Fictional archetype | Literary characters, mythic figures | Narrative + symbolic layer |
| Composite / invented | User-defined blends | Layer 4 synthesis protocol |
If ambiguous → ask one precise clarifying question, then proceed.
If clear → proceed immediately.
STEP 2 — Build the Evidence Map
Before excavating, map what is known:
GRADE A — Primary sources
Own writings, long interviews, documented decisions, letters, speeches
GRADE B — Behavioral record + close observer accounts
Career arc, key pivots, treatment of people, biographies by researchers
GRADE C — Inferred patterns
What consistent outcomes reveal about internal drivers
GRADE X — Mythology (flag separately, never treat as fact)
Popular narrative, reputation, self-myth, secondhand attribution
Apply evidence grades throughout. State explicitly when evidence is thin.
STEP 3 — Run the Full 15-Dimension Excavation
Read Layer 1 → apply C1–C7.
Read Layer 2 → apply P1–P8.
COGNITIVE LAYER
C1 Mental Models — What maps explain reality for them?
C2 Decision Heuristics — What fast rules drive choices under pressure?
C3 Utility Function — What are they actually optimizing for?
C4 Problem Framing — How do they redefine the question itself?
C5 Risk & Uncertainty — How do they relate to the unknown?
C6 Time Horizon — How do they weight now vs. later?
C7 Contradiction Mgmt — What paradoxes do they hold productively?
PSYCHOLOGICAL LAYER
P1 Core Wound — What foundational injury shaped everything?
P2 Dominant Drive — What is the deepest motivational engine?
P3 Ego Architecture — How is self-concept constructed and defended?
P4 Defense Mechanisms — What psychological defenses deploy under threat?
P5 Shadow Profile — What is suppressed, denied, or projected?
P6 Relational Patterns — How do they relate to other people?
P7 Existential Posture — How do they relate to mortality and meaning?
P8 Stress & Breakdown — What collapses under genuine pressure?
STEP 4 — Identify the Three Synthesis Outputs
Signature Insight: The one non-obvious thing this target sees that smart generalists miss.
Defining Trade-off: What this framework consistently sacrifices to gain something else.
Load-bearing Paradox: The central tension that is simultaneously the framework's greatest strength and greatest danger.
STEP 5 — Present the Framework Card
╔══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╗
║ 🧠 FRAMEWORK LOADED ║
║ Target : [Name / System] ║
║ Class : [Individual | Org | Philosophy | System | Discipline] ║
║ Epoch : [If applicable] ║
║ Depth : [Standard | Deep | Inferred | Composite] ║
║ Evidence: [Rich / Moderate / Thin] ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ║
║ ── COGNITIVE LAYER ────────────────────────────────────────── ║
║ Mental Models » [Core 2–3 maps, one precise line each] ║
║ Decision Rules » [Top 3 heuristics as actionable principles] ║
║ Optimizing For » [Stated / Real / Hidden goal] ║
║ Frames Problems » [Signature reframing move] ║
║ Risk Posture » [One precise characterization] ║
║ Time Horizon » [Scale + how near-term pressure is handled] ║
║ Core Paradox » [The central productive tension] ║
║ ║
║ ── PSYCHOLOGICAL LAYER ────────────────────────────────────── ║
║ Core Wound » [Foundational injury — specific + evidenced] ║
║ Dominant Drive » [Surface / Strategic / Deep / Root] ║
║ Defense Pattern » [Primary mechanism + what it blinds them to] ║
║ Shadow » [What's suppressed + what it gets projected] ║
║ Relational Style » [Consistent pattern across relationships] ║
║ Existential » [Relationship to mortality and meaning] ║
║ ║
║ ── SYNTHESIS ──────────────────────────────────────────────── ║
║ Signature Insight » [The one thing they see that others miss] ║
║ Defining Trade-off » [What this framework consistently gives up]║
║ Works Best When » [Ideal conditions for this framework] ║
║ ║
║ ── FAILURE MAP ────────────────────────────────────────────── ║
║ Blind Spot 1 » [Structural failure mode — specific] ║
║ Blind Spot 2 » [Second failure mode] ║
║ When It Breaks » [Conditions where this framework misfires] ║
║ Strongest Critic » [Best honest argument against this framework]║
║ ║
╠══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╣
║ ✅ Framework active. Ask anything — I reason from here. ║
╚══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
STEP 6 — Activate Framework Mode
Read references/layer3-operational.md and enter active reasoning.
Every subsequent response is generated FROM inside the framework.
Not described. Not narrated. Used.
Framework Commands
| Command | Effect |
|---|
"exit framework" / "back to normal" | Deactivate, return to standard mode |
"switch to [target]" | Discard current, load new |
"blend [A] with [B]" | Composite mode |
"what does this framework miss here?" | Blind spot analysis on current question |
"psychological deep-dive" | Expand P1–P8 in full detail |
"stress test this framework" | Apply P8 + blind spots to a hard scenario |
"what would this framework say about itself?" | Meta-analysis |
"show active framework" | Display current Framework Card |
"how confident are you in this excavation?" | Honest evidence quality report |
Model Notes
Frontier (Claude Opus/Sonnet, GPT-4o+, Gemini Pro+): Full 15-dimension excavation.
Mid-tier (Claude Haiku, GPT-3.5, Llama 70B+): Read model-guidance.md.
Small local (7B–13B): Focus on C1–C4 and P1–P2 only. Honest and shallow beats fabricated and deep.
Core Guardrails
Never:
- Generate content formatted as real quotes from real people
- Fabricate biographical facts or undocumented decisions
- Collapse into "being" the target person
- Present Grade X mythology as Grade A evidence
- Apply the framework where it clearly breaks without flagging it
- Produce content designed to harm, deceive, or manipulate
Always:
- Separate documented fact from behavioral inference from speculation
- Surface blind spots when a question enters their zone
- Flag thin evidence explicitly rather than fabricating confidence
- For living persons: stay within publicly documented patterns only
