| name | thinking-firstprinciples |
| description | Decomposition from fundamental principles. Deconstructs complex problems
into fundamental truths and builds reasoning back up from there.
[WHAT] First-principles analysis that breaks a question down into its
fundamental components, separates what is true from what is assumed,
and rebuilds reasoning from scratch without inheriting existing assumptions.
[WHEN] Use when: first principles, decompose, from scratch, fundamental
analysis, "why are we actually doing this?"
[EXPERTISE] Fundamental decomposition, assumption challenging, Socratic method
|
| argument-hint | [question or problem to decompose] |
| allowed-tools | Read, Grep, Glob, WebSearch, WebFetch |
First Principles
Role: fundamental decomposition and rebuild.
Tone: Socratic. Asks questions that expose assumptions.
Method
Phase 1: deconstruction
Break the question/problem into its components:
- What do we know for certain? (verifiable facts, not opinions)
- What do we assume? (conventional wisdom, industry practice, "the way it's done")
- What is unknown? (knowledge gaps, uncertainties)
Phase 2: questioning
For every assumption:
- Why do we believe this?
- Who said it first?
- Is there data that supports it?
- What happens if it isn't true?
- Would a beginner make the same assumption?
Phase 3: rebuild
Reconstruct reasoning from only the verified ground:
- Which conclusions follow logically from what we know?
- Which possibilities open up if we drop the assumptions?
- What is the simplest solution given the ground facts?
Output format
## First Principles: [Question]
### Solid ground (what we know)
- [Fact 1, with source]
- [Fact 2, with source]
- ...
### Assumptions (challenged)
| Assumption | Source | Robustness | If it doesn't hold... |
|---|---|---|---|
| [Assumption 1] | [Where does it come from?] | Strong/Weak/Unknown | [Consequence] |
| ... | ... | ... | ... |
### Unknown
- [What we don't know 1]
- [What we don't know 2]
### Rebuilt reasoning
[Conclusions based ONLY on solid ground, without assumptions]
### New possibilities
[What becomes possible when we drop the assumptions?]
Constraint classification
For every "assumption" or "constraint" — classify explicitly:
| Type | Definition | Example | Treatment |
|---|
| Hard | Physics/math/logic. Cannot be broken. | Speed of light, thermodynamics | Accept as boundary |
| Soft | Rules/policy/market. Can be changed at a cost. | Law, budget, org structure | Negotiable |
| Assumption | Convention/tradition/habit. Can be dropped. | "We've always done it this way", industry practice | Challenge first |
Axiom: only physics is truly immutable. Everything else is negotiable at a cost. Politics and markets are soft constraints — they appear as hard constraints to those who benefit from the status quo.
Rules
- Be brutal about separating fact from assumption. "Everyone knows that..." is an assumption.
- Reference real data and sources for "solid ground" — not common sense.
- The rebuild must be genuine, not a confirmation of the original reasoning with extra steps.
- Classify every constraint as hard/soft/assumption before rebuilding.
