deep-reasoning

name	deep-reasoning
description	Structured multi-step reasoning tool for complex problem solving with branching, hypothesis testing, and evidence tracking.
version	1.0.0
tags	["reasoning","problem-solving","analysis","thinking","planning"]
triggers	["think through this","reason about","analyze step by step","break down this problem","help me think","complex problem","need to figure out","let me think"]
entrypoints	{"example":{"script":"scripts/example.py","description":"Show an example of deep reasoning in action."}}
required_permissions	[]
license	MIT
compatibility	AG3NT 1.x
metadata	{"author":"ag3nt-team","category":"reasoning"}

Deep Reasoning Skill

Use this skill when you need to think through complex problems systematically. The deep_reasoning tool helps you:

• Break down complex problems into manageable steps
• Explore multiple solution approaches (branching)
• Revise earlier thinking when new information emerges
• Generate and test hypotheses
• Track confidence levels in your conclusions
• Maintain structured reasoning across long analyses

When to Use Deep Reasoning

Use this tool when:

• The problem requires multiple steps to solve
• You need to explore alternative approaches
• Earlier assumptions might need revision
• You want to track confidence in your conclusions
• The problem involves hypothesis testing
• You need to maintain reasoning context across many steps

Don't use for:

• Simple factual lookups
• Single-step operations
• Tasks that don't benefit from structured thinking

The deep_reasoning Tool

Basic Parameters

Parameter	Type	Required	Description
thought	string	Yes	Your current thinking step
thought_number	int	Yes	Current step number (1, 2, 3...)
total_thoughts	int	Yes	Estimated total steps needed
next_thought_needed	bool	Yes	True if more thinking needed

Advanced Parameters

Parameter	Type	Default	Description
thought_type	string	"regular"	Type: regular, hypothesis, verification, revision, branch, conclusion, question, evidence
reasoning_mode	string	"analytical"	Mode: analytical, creative, critical, exploratory, deductive, inductive, abductive
confidence	float	0.7	Confidence level (0.0 to 1.0)
is_revision	bool	false	Whether this revises a previous thought
revises_thought	int	null	Which thought number is being revised
branch_from_thought	int	null	Create a branch from this thought
branch_id	string	null	Identifier for the branch
hypothesis_statement	string	null	Propose a new hypothesis
hypothesis_id	string	null	Reference an existing hypothesis

Reasoning Modes

Choose the mode that fits your analysis:

Mode	When to Use
analytical	Breaking down problems, examining components
creative	Brainstorming, generating novel solutions
critical	Evaluating claims, finding weaknesses
exploratory	Open-ended investigation, discovery
deductive	Applying general rules to specific cases
inductive	Inferring patterns from specific examples
abductive	Finding the best explanation for observations

Thought Types

Mark your thoughts appropriately:

Type	Purpose
regular	Standard reasoning step
hypothesis	Proposing something to test
verification	Testing a hypothesis
revision	Updating earlier thinking
branch	Exploring an alternative path
conclusion	Final determination
question	Identifying what needs answering
evidence	Recording supporting data

Example Workflows

Basic Sequential Reasoning

Thought 1/5: "Let me understand the problem first..."
Thought 2/5: "The key constraints are..."
Thought 3/5: "One approach would be..."
Thought 4/5: "Evaluating this approach..."
Thought 5/5: "My conclusion is..." (next_thought_needed=false)

With Branching

Thought 1/5: "Initial analysis..."
Thought 2/5: "Approach A would..."
Thought 3/5: "But what if we try Approach B?" (branch_from_thought=2, branch_id="approach_b")
Thought 4/5: "Comparing both approaches..."
Thought 5/5: "Approach B is better because..."

With Hypothesis Testing

Thought 1/5: "Observing the symptoms..."
Thought 2/5: "I hypothesize the cause is X" (hypothesis_statement="The bug is in the auth layer")
Thought 3/5: "Testing this hypothesis..." (thought_type="verification", hypothesis_id="...")
Thought 4/5: "Evidence supports/refutes the hypothesis..."
Thought 5/5: "Conclusion based on verified hypothesis..."

With Revision

Thought 1/5: "Initial assumption: the database is the bottleneck"
Thought 2/5: "But wait, the metrics show..." (is_revision=true, revises_thought=1)
Thought 3/5: "Actually, the network latency is the issue..."

Complete Tool Call Examples

Example 1: Starting a Reasoning Session

{
  "thought": "Let me break down this authentication bug. The user reports they can log in but get logged out after 5 minutes.",
  "thought_number": 1,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": true,
  "reasoning_mode": "analytical",
  "confidence": 0.8
}

Example 2: Proposing a Hypothesis

{
  "thought": "Based on the 5-minute timeout, I suspect the session token expiration is set incorrectly.",
  "thought_number": 2,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": true,
  "thought_type": "hypothesis",
  "hypothesis_statement": "Session token TTL is set to 5 minutes instead of the expected 30 minutes",
  "confidence": 0.7
}

Example 3: Creating a Branch

{
  "thought": "Alternatively, this could be a cookie domain mismatch issue causing the session to not persist.",
  "thought_number": 3,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": true,
  "branch_from_thought": 2,
  "branch_id": "cookie_theory",
  "reasoning_mode": "exploratory",
  "confidence": 0.5
}

Example 4: Revising Earlier Thinking

{
  "thought": "After checking the config, the TTL is correct at 30 minutes. My earlier hypothesis was wrong.",
  "thought_number": 4,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": true,
  "is_revision": true,
  "revises_thought": 2,
  "thought_type": "revision",
  "confidence": 0.9
}

Example 5: Reaching a Conclusion

{
  "thought": "The issue is confirmed: the cookie domain was set to 'example.com' but the app runs on 'app.example.com'. Fixing the domain setting resolves the logout issue.",
  "thought_number": 6,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": false,
  "thought_type": "conclusion",
  "confidence": 0.95
}

Best Practices

1. Start with Clear Problem Definition

Always begin by clearly stating what you're trying to solve. This anchors the entire reasoning chain.

2. Adjust Total Thoughts Dynamically

If you realize you need more steps, increase total_thoughts. The tool handles this gracefully.

3. Use Appropriate Confidence Levels

• 0.9-1.0: Very confident, based on verified facts
• 0.7-0.8: Reasonably confident, good evidence
• 0.5-0.6: Uncertain, exploring possibilities
• 0.3-0.4: Low confidence, speculative
• 0.1-0.2: Highly uncertain, just brainstorming

4. Branch When Exploring Alternatives

Don't just mention alternatives—create explicit branches. This helps track which path led to the solution.

5. Revise Rather Than Ignore

When you realize earlier thinking was wrong, use is_revision=true to explicitly update it. This maintains reasoning integrity.

6. End with Conclusions

Always set next_thought_needed=false and thought_type="conclusion" when you've reached your answer.

Tool Response Format

The tool returns a JSON response with:

{
  "status": "success",
  "thought_id": "abc123",
  "thought_number": 3,
  "total_thoughts": 6,
  "next_thought_needed": true,
  "branches": ["main", "cookie_theory"],
  "hypotheses": ["hyp_001"],
  "thought_history_length": 3,
  "average_confidence": 0.73,
  "current_mode": "analytical",
  "guidance": "Consider testing your hypothesis with evidence.",
  "hypothesis_id": "hyp_001"
}

Integration with Other Tools

Deep reasoning works well with:

• web_search: Gather evidence to support or refute hypotheses
• read_file: Examine code or configs during analysis
• run_skill: Execute other skills as part of your reasoning
• memory_search: Recall relevant past context

Troubleshooting

"Max branches reached"

You've hit the branch limit (default: 10). Consolidate branches or start a new reasoning session.

"Max thoughts reached"

You've hit the thought limit (default: 50). Summarize your findings and start fresh if needed.

Low average confidence

If your average confidence is below 0.5, consider:

• Gathering more evidence
• Revising uncertain assumptions
• Exploring alternative approaches