| name | workflow-thinking |
| description | Structured step-by-step deep analysis via the --deepthink flag, performed with Claude's native extended reasoning. Use for multi-step analysis or architecture decisions.
|
| license | Apache-2.0 |
| compatibility | Designed for Claude Code |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob |
| effort | high |
| user-invocable | false |
| metadata | {"version":"3.0.0","category":"workflow","status":"active","modularized":"false"} |
| progressive_disclosure | {"enabled":true,"level1_tokens":100,"level2_tokens":3000} |
| triggers | {"keywords":["deepthink","deep analysis","complex problem","architecture decision","technology selection","trade-off","breaking change"],"phases":["plan"],"agents":["manager-strategy","manager-spec"]} |
Structured Deep Analysis (--deepthink)
Structured, revisable step-by-step reasoning performed with Claude's native
extended reasoning. No external tool is required — --deepthink raises the rigor
and visibility of the reasoning, it does not call an MCP server.
Two Reasoning Modes
| Mode | Trigger | Mechanism |
|---|
--deepthink | Explicit --deepthink flag | Native extended reasoning, written out as an explicit, numbered, revisable thought chain |
ultrathink | Keyword or auto-detection | Native extended reasoning at high effort |
Rules:
--deepthink → produce a visible, structured thought chain (numbered steps,
explicit revisions, explicit branches) before the conclusion.ultrathink → maximize native reasoning effort; structure is optional.- They compose:
ultrathink --deepthink means maximum effort AND a written,
structured chain.
- Let depth adapt to task complexity; do not pad simple problems.
Activation Triggers (--deepthink)
Produce a structured thought chain when --deepthink is present, or when the task
involves:
- Breaking down complex problems into steps
- Planning and design with room for revision
- Architecture decisions that affect 3+ files
- Technology selection between multiple options
- Performance vs maintainability trade-offs
- Breaking changes under consideration
- Multiple approaches to the same problem
- Repetitive errors
Method
Write the reasoning as an explicit chain so the conclusion can be reviewed:
- Estimate scope — state how many steps you expect.
- Number each step — one move per step (frame, decompose, evaluate, decide).
- Revise openly — when a later step contradicts an earlier one, write a
revision step that names the step it corrects.
- Branch when alternatives exist — label each alternative and compare them
explicitly rather than silently picking one.
- Conclude — the final step states the answer and cites the step numbers
that support it.
Guidelines
- Start with a reasonable step-count estimate and adjust as needed.
- Make revisions explicit; do not silently overwrite earlier reasoning.
- Keep the step sequence intact and readable.
- Only conclude once the chain is complete.
- Use explicit branches when exploring alternatives.
Common Rationalizations
| Rationalization | Reality |
|---|
| "I can think through this in my head, it is simple" | Simple problems often hide second-order effects. A written chain forces you to enumerate them. |
| "The thinking steps are just internal, I do not need to record them" | Unrecorded reasoning cannot be reviewed. The chain is the evidence for the conclusion. |
| "I already know the answer, the framework is overhead" | Confirmation bias skips disconfirming evidence. The framework forces you to consider alternatives. |
| "Branching is overkill for this decision" | Decisions with more than one viable path benefit from explicit branch comparison, even briefly. |
Red Flags
- Architecture decision made without a documented reasoning chain
- Chain ended before reaching a conclusion
- No revision steps despite encountering contradictions
- No branching when two or more viable alternatives were identified
Verification
