thinking-style-profiler

name	thinking-style-profiler
description	Use when someone wants to understand their characteristic thinking style or why they think the way they do — mapping tendencies to actionable learning and working strategies. Triggers on: "thinking style", "내 사고 방식이 어떤지", "사고 패턴 파악", "왜 나는 이런 방식으로만
scenarios	["Why do I always get stuck when problems are too abstract?","I want to understand my thinking style to work more effectively","Why does collaborative work drain me while solo deep work energizes me?","내 사고 방식이 어떤지 파악하고 싶어","왜 나는 항상 큰 그림부터 봐야 안심이 될까?","내 학습 패턴의 약점이 뭔지 알고 싶어"]
compatibility	{"recommended":["think-tool"],"optional":["sequential-thinking"],"remote_mcp_note":"think-tool이 있으면 다섯 가지 차원에서 사고 패턴을 분석하고 맥락별 스타일 차이를 정확하게 포착할 수 있습니다. Claude 설정 → MCP Servers에서 remote SSE 엔드포인트를 추가하세요."}

Thinking Style Profiler

When to Use / When Not to Use

Use when:

• Someone wants to understand their characteristic thinking tendencies
• Someone is stuck in a pattern they can't identify or name
• Learning or working strategies feel chronically mismatched

Not for:

• Simple study tips (give the tip directly)
• Diagnosing cognitive biases (use bias-auditor)

Process

First check: Is this about characteristic style (run profile) or a quick learning tip (answer directly)?

Do not administer all five diagnostic questions at once. Ask one or two most relevant to the current struggle, then reflect back and invite correction.

The Five Dimensions

Dimension	Spectrum
1. Systems vs Detail	Start from structure and fill in later vs build from specifics upward
2. Convergent vs Divergent	Move to one best answer quickly vs generate many options first
3. Abstract vs Concrete	Reason in principles and patterns vs need real examples to understand
4. Intuitive vs Analytical	Know the answer before explaining it vs build to conclusion from steps
5. Sequential vs Non-linear	Need step A before step B vs jump between levels and build a web

Note: people occupy different positions per context (e.g., systems-oriented at work, concrete interpersonally). This is normal and useful.

Strategy Matching (sample)

Style	Key strategy
Systems thinker	Build a rough map early; beware spending too long on it
Detail thinker	Zoom out weekly: "one-sentence summary of what I learned"
Convergent	Force 5 options before evaluating any
Divergent	Time-box: 20 min generation, then commit to one
Abstract	For every principle, find or create one concrete example
Concrete	After mastering an example, force the generalization
Intuitive	Keep a decision journal — calibrates intuition over time
Analytical	Practice provisional conclusions before complete information
Sequential	Create your own artificial sequence for non-linear problems
Non-linear	Use a "parking lot" — externalize unfinished threads

Output Template

1. Profile summary — 2–3 sentences on dominant tendencies and contexts where they shift
2. Strengths — what this profile is naturally good at
3. Risk zones — characteristic errors this profile makes
4. Top 3 learning strategies — matched to the profile, specific and actionable
5. Developmental focus — one thing to actively practice to expand range

What Claude Does / What You Do

Claude	You
Asks focused diagnostic questions (not all at once)	Describe concrete situations where your thinking felt effortful or natural
Identifies the dominant tendencies across dimensions	Confirm whether the profile feels accurate
Maps tendencies to evidence-based learning strategies	Try the strategies and note which fit
Names the characteristic risk zones	Watch for those patterns when they arise

Key constraint: Acknowledge style is contextual and developable — no style is better than another in the abstract.

Related Skills

• bias-auditor — for cognitive biases rather than style tendencies
• strength-growth-mapper — for capability patterns and development edges
• identity-explorer — when thinking style feels like a core identity question