name	sequential-thinking
description	Break a multi-step task into numbered reasoning steps before acting. Used by taw-kit planner agent to decompose ambiguous Vietnamese prompts into executable phases. Vietnamese trigger phrases: "suy nghĩ từng bước", "phân tích kĩ", "chia nhỏ ra".

sequential-thinking

Forces deliberate, numbered reasoning when a problem is too fuzzy to one-shot. Prevents plan holes.

When to invoke

Intent classification confidence is low (user text is ambiguous)
Requirements conflict (user asks for auth + no login in the same sentence)
Estimating effort for a feature the orchestrator has not built before
Whenever the output would otherwise be "let me just try and see"

Method

Produce a numbered list where each step satisfies:

One action verb per step. "Check", "Decide", "Write", "Invoke".
Observable output. What file/state changes after the step?
Cheap before expensive. Verify assumptions before spawning agents or running npm install.
Stop condition. Each step has a pass/fail check before the next step is considered.

Rendering contract

Internal reasoning. The user does NOT see these steps unless they hit an error — then surface the last 3 steps as context for /taw-fix.

Example

User prompt: "xây blog cá nhân, kiểu như medium, có login, dùng chung tài khoản Google"

Reasoning:

Check intent: blog with social login — multi-user or single-user?
Spot conflict: "cá nhân" (solo) vs "chung tài khoản Google" (multi). Decide: ask user.
If solo → skip Google OAuth, use Supabase magic-link for author only.
If multi → add Google provider, but this raises scope ≥ CRM level.
Default assumption: solo author + Google OAuth for SSO convenience only.
Load taw clarify template Q16 (blog storage) + custom Q (Google login for you or for readers?).

Only step 6 is visible — prior steps stay in the reasoning scratchpad.

Anti-patterns

Don't produce "plan of plan" loops. If the reasoning itself needs sequential-thinking, stop and ask the user.
Don't fabricate deadlines ("Step 7 takes 5 minutes"). Time estimates belong in the plan bullets, not the reasoning trace.
Never expose intermediate reasoning to the user unless debugging.

sequential-thinking

Forces deliberate, numbered reasoning when a problem is too fuzzy to one-shot. Prevents plan holes.

When to invoke

Intent classification confidence is low (user text is ambiguous)

Requirements conflict (user asks for auth + no login in the same sentence)

Estimating effort for a feature the orchestrator has not built before

Whenever the output would otherwise be "let me just try and see"

Method

Produce a numbered list where each step satisfies:

One action verb per step. "Check", "Decide", "Write", "Invoke".

Observable output. What file/state changes after the step?

Cheap before expensive. Verify assumptions before spawning agents or running npm install.

Stop condition. Each step has a pass/fail check before the next step is considered.

Rendering contract

Internal reasoning. The user does NOT see these steps unless they hit an error — then surface the last 3 steps as context for /taw-fix.

Example

User prompt: "xây blog cá nhân, kiểu như medium, có login, dùng chung tài khoản Google"

Reasoning:

Check intent: blog with social login — multi-user or single-user?

Spot conflict: "cá nhân" (solo) vs "chung tài khoản Google" (multi). Decide: ask user.

If solo → skip Google OAuth, use Supabase magic-link for author only.

If multi → add Google provider, but this raises scope ≥ CRM level.

Default assumption: solo author + Google OAuth for SSO convenience only.

Load taw clarify template Q16 (blog storage) + custom Q (Google login for you or for readers?).

Only step 6 is visible — prior steps stay in the reasoning scratchpad.

Anti-patterns

Don't produce "plan of plan" loops. If the reasoning itself needs sequential-thinking, stop and ask the user.

Don't fabricate deadlines ("Step 7 takes 5 minutes"). Time estimates belong in the plan bullets, not the reasoning trace.

Never expose intermediate reasoning to the user unless debugging.

sequential-thinking