workflow-thinking

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:

1. Estimate scope — state how many steps you expect.
2. Number each step — one move per step (frame, decompose, evaluate, decide).
3. Revise openly — when a later step contradicts an earlier one, write a revision step that names the step it corrects.
4. Branch when alternatives exist — label each alternative and compare them explicitly rather than silently picking one.
5. Conclude — the final step states the answer and cites the step numbers that support it.

Guidelines

1. Start with a reasonable step-count estimate and adjust as needed.
2. Make revisions explicit; do not silently overwrite earlier reasoning.
3. Keep the step sequence intact and readable.
4. Only conclude once the chain is complete.
5. 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

• Thinking chain has a clear step-count estimate that was met or revised
• Final step states a conclusion
• At least one revision step exists if contradictions were encountered
• Branching used when multiple alternatives were identified
• Conclusion references specific step numbers as supporting evidence