deep-think

name	deep-think
description	Extended reasoning and deliberation for complex, ambiguous, or high-stakes problems. Use when standard analysis is insufficient — multi-dimensional trade-offs, philosophical questions, architectural decisions with long-term consequences, or problems where the first obvious answer is likely wrong. Forces slower, more thorough thinking with explicit reasoning chains.

Deep Think

Extended deliberation skill for problems that resist quick answers. Forces multi-step reasoning, considers second-order effects, and produces well-justified conclusions.

Trigger Words

• /deep-think
• "think deeply about"
• "reason through this"
• "what are the second-order effects"
• "this is a hard problem"
• "deliberate on"
• "think step by step"

When to Use

• Architectural decisions with 6+ month consequences
• Trade-offs where multiple options seem equally valid
• Problems where the obvious answer might be wrong
• Multi-stakeholder decisions with conflicting interests
• Ethical or philosophical dimensions
• Debugging subtle, hard-to-reproduce issues
• Strategy formulation under uncertainty

Core Process

Deep Think Progress:
- [ ] Step 1: Problem decomposition
- [ ] Step 2: Assumption surfacing
- [ ] Step 3: Multi-perspective analysis
- [ ] Step 4: Second-order effects mapping
- [ ] Step 5: Synthesis and conclusion
- [ ] Step 6: Confidence calibration

Step 1: Problem Decomposition

Break the problem into its constituent parts:

## Problem Statement
[Restate the problem in your own words]

## Sub-Problems
1. [Component A] — [why it matters]
2. [Component B] — [why it matters]
3. [Component C] — [why it matters]

## Dependencies
- [A] depends on [B] because...
- [C] is independent of [A/B]

Step 2: Assumption Surfacing

Explicitly list every assumption:

## Assumptions (must be stated explicitly)

| # | Assumption | Type | If Wrong, Impact |
|---|-----------|------|------------------|
| 1 | [assumption] | [factual/value/scope] | [consequence] |
| 2 | [assumption] | [factual/value/scope] | [consequence] |

Challenge each assumption:

• Is this actually true, or do we just believe it?
• What evidence supports/contradicts this?
• What if the opposite were true?

Step 3: Multi-Perspective Analysis

Analyze from at least 3 different viewpoints:

## Perspectives

### Perspective 1: [Role/Viewpoint]
- Sees the problem as: [framing]
- Prioritizes: [values]
- Would decide: [choice]
- Reasoning: [chain]

### Perspective 2: [Role/Viewpoint]
[same structure]

### Perspective 3: Devil's Advocate
- The strongest argument against the emerging consensus is: [argument]
- Evidence supporting this counter-view: [evidence]
- This matters because: [reason]

Step 4: Second-Order Effects

## Effects Cascade

### First-Order (Direct)
- If we choose X: [immediate consequence]

### Second-Order (Indirect)
- That consequence leads to: [downstream effect]
- Which in turn causes: [further downstream]

### Third-Order (Systemic)
- Over time, the system adapts by: [emergent behavior]

### Reversibility Assessment
- Can we undo this decision? [yes/partially/no]
- Cost of reversal: [low/medium/high/impossible]
- Time window for reversal: [timeframe]

Step 5: Synthesis

## Synthesis

### What the evidence tells us
[Integrate findings from all perspectives]

### What remains uncertain
[Honest assessment of unknowns]

### Recommended path
[Clear recommendation with reasoning chain]

### Key insight
[The single most important thing learned through this analysis]

Step 6: Confidence Calibration

## Confidence Assessment

| Aspect | Confidence | Basis |
|--------|-----------|-------|
| Problem understanding | [0-100%] | [why] |
| Solution correctness | [0-100%] | [why] |
| Implementation feasibility | [0-100%] | [why] |
| Overall recommendation | [0-100%] | [why] |

### What would change my mind
- If [condition], I would reconsider [aspect]
- New information about [topic] could shift the analysis

Thinking Techniques

Use these when stuck:

Technique	When to Use	How
Inversion	"What would make this fail?"	Think about the opposite
First Principles	Assumptions feel shaky	Strip to fundamental truths
Pre-mortem	Before committing	"It's 6 months later and this failed — why?"
Steel Man	Considering alternatives	Make the strongest case for the opposing view
Regret Minimization	Long-term decisions	"Which choice minimizes regret in 10 years?"
Fermi Estimation	Quantifying unknowns	Order-of-magnitude estimates with reasoning

Output Format

Always produce:

1. Problem restatement (in your own words)
2. Key assumptions (explicit, numbered)
3. Analysis (multi-perspective, with reasoning chains)
4. Second-order effects (at least 2 levels deep)
5. Conclusion (with confidence level and what would change your mind)

Anti-Patterns

• Do NOT rush to a conclusion — the point is thorough deliberation
• Do NOT ignore uncomfortable evidence
• Do NOT confuse complexity with depth
• Do NOT present analysis without stating confidence levels
• Do NOT skip the assumption-surfacing step
• Do NOT use this for simple questions that have clear answers