Immutable. This exact content is served forever at /api/v1/blob/98656d59f24148a3.
# Thinking Framework Skills - full catalog > An evidence-graded library of agent-executable thinking-method skills for Claude Code, Codex, and other AI agents. 63 skills, 4 tools, and 9 recipes; every skill produces a concrete, named artifact. 135 methods were evaluated and graded, 63 ship as skills. This is the expanded llms.txt: every invokable component inlined with its routing metadata, so an agent can ingest the catalog in a single fetch. The compact index is [llms.txt](https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/llms.txt); the structured forms are [catalog.json](https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/catalog.json) and [evaluated.json](https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/evaluated.json). ## Skills ### Perspective-shifting and multi-lens #### think-parallel-perspectives-review - Name: Parallel Perspectives Review - Family: perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: examine a decision through separated lenses (facts/upside/risk/intuition/alternatives/process) - When to use: Use when a choice needs a rounded look, or when risk-aversion or optimism is drowning out the other perspectives. - Produces: multi-lens-review - Also known as: parallel-thinking, separated-lens review - Used in recipes: audit-reasoning, reframe-problem - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-parallel-perspectives-review/ #### think-red-team-light - Name: Red Team / Blue Team - Family: perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens - Evidence tier: M - Mechanism: construct the strongest adversarial case against a thesis - When to use: Use when a plan has too-easy consensus and needs pressure-testing, or to steelman the opposition before committing. - Produces: adversarial-critique - Also known as: Red Team, Blue Team - Used in recipes: idea-quality-audit - Pairs with: think-premortem, think-what-would-have-to-be-true - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-red-team-light/ #### think-role-storming - Name: Role-storming - Family: perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: generate divergent ideas while inhabiting a chosen non-self persona, using the identity as an inhibition-lowering and distancing lens - When to use: Use when idea flow is throttled by self-consciousness or a fixated frame rather than missing knowledge, and you want more and stranger candidates before converging. Not evaluation through fixed lenses (that is parallel-perspectives) and not genuine challenge (that is authentic-dissent). - Produces: persona-tagged-idea-list - Also known as: rolestorming, role storming, role-play brainstorming - Pairs with: think-brainwriting, think-scamper, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-role-storming/ ### Divergent ideation and idea expansion #### think-assumption-reversal - Name: Assumption Reversal - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: negate foundational premises to generate options - When to use: Use when an option space feels stuck inside default constraints, or when you need to expose premises that are taken for granted. - Produces: assumptions-and-reversals-sheet - Used in recipes: expand-options, first-principles - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-scamper, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-assumption-reversal/ #### think-brainwriting - Name: Brainwriting 6-3-5 / NGT - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: silent parallel written generation + build-on - When to use: Use when you need breadth of options and want to avoid the anchoring and conformity that make ordinary brainstorming underperform. - Produces: idea-pool - Also known as: Brainwriting 6-3-5, 6-3-5, NGT, Nominal Group Technique - Pairs with: think-scamper, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-brainwriting/ #### think-far-analogy-ideation - Name: Far-analogy ideation - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: transfer deep structure from distant domains - When to use: Use when near, obvious solutions are exhausted and you need genuinely original approaches. - Produces: far-analogy-transfer-sheet - Also known as: Far analogy, analogical ideation - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-far-analogy-ideation/ #### think-morphological-analysis - Name: Morphological analysis - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: enumerate the solution space by parameter combination, then prune to the internally consistent configurations (cross-consistency assessment) - When to use: Use when a solution is genuinely a configuration - a choice on each of several semi-independent dimensions (product architecture, service bundle, policy package) - and the risk is defaulting to one familiar combination and never seeing the rest of the space. Not a top-down MECE tree and not a provoked option list. - Produces: morphological-field - Also known as: Morphological box, Zwicky box, General Morphological Analysis, GMA, morphological chart, cross-consistency assessment - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-issue-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-morphological-analysis/ #### think-question-burst - Name: Question Burst - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: rapid questions-only burst, then rank + pick - When to use: Use when you are stuck, too attached to one framing, or need a better question before answering. - Produces: ranked-question-set - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-evidence-vs-inference-sort - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-question-burst/ #### think-scamper - Name: SCAMPER - Family: divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: seven transformation prompts on a seed idea - When to use: Use when you have a seed idea and need to break past the obvious options; not for blank-page ideation. - Produces: scamper-expansion-sheet - Also known as: Substitute Combine Adapt Modify Put-to-other-use Eliminate Reverse - Used in recipes: expand-options - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-scamper/ ### Problem framing and reframing #### think-abstraction-laddering - Name: Abstraction Laddering - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: move up (why) and down (how) to the right altitude - When to use: Use when a problem is stated as a bare solution with an unstated purpose, as a vague aspiration with no concrete handle, when people are arguing past each other at different levels, or before committing effort at an altitude nobody chose on purpose. - Produces: abstraction-ladder - Also known as: Abstraction ladder, Why-How ladder - Used in recipes: first-principles - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-issue-tree, think-question-burst - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-abstraction-laddering/ #### think-boundary-critique - Name: Boundary Critique (Critical Systems Heuristics) - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: C/P - Mechanism: audit the boundary judgments that define a frame (who benefits / decides / has expertise / has standing), contrasting the 'is' boundary against the 'ought' boundary and naming the affected-but-excluded - When to use: Use when a plan, metric, or proposal already encodes who matters and who does not and the risk is solving a tidy problem for the people inside the line while pushing harm onto people outside it, when an improvement claim rests on an unexamined judgment about whose improvement, or on contested, value-laden, multi-party situations. - Produces: boundary-judgment-audit - Also known as: Critical Systems Heuristics, CSH, boundary judgments, twelve boundary questions, is-ought boundary analysis - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-decision-option-review, think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-boundary-critique/ #### think-contradiction-resolution - Name: Contradiction Resolution (Ideal Final Result) - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: M/P - Mechanism: reframe a trade-off as a contradiction to dissolve (separation in time/space/scale/condition), anchored to an implementation-free Ideal Final Result - When to use: Use when a decision has hardened into an either/or like speed versus quality, thorough versus fast, or generous versus profitable, when splitting the difference feels wrong and a win-win would be worth far more than the best compromise, or when a recurring design or product trade-off keeps forcing the same painful balance. - Produces: contradiction-resolution-worksheet - Also known as: TRIZ, Theory of Inventive Problem Solving, Ideal Final Result, IFR, contradiction matrix, 40 inventive principles, separation principles - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-decision-option-review, think-abstraction-laddering - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-contradiction-resolution/ #### think-five-whys - Name: Five Whys - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: X - Contested lens: run-caveat-first, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: iterative why to trace a cause - When to use: Runs a Five Whys root-cause trace caveat-first. It leads with the weak evidence (Card 2017 found the single-chain method oversimplifies multi-causal problems), then forces the discipline a bare why-chain lacks, namely flagging at each step whether more than one cause could apply. Use only when Five Whys is asked for by name; for any problem that might have more than one cause prefer think-issue-tree. - Produces: branch-flagged-five-whys-chain - Also known as: 5 Whys - Pairs with: think-issue-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-five-whys/ #### think-frame-creation - Name: Frame Creation - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: C/P - Mechanism: reframe the problem by distilling themes and the core paradox, then abduce a new standpoint (often an 'approach it as if it were Y' analogy) and reason forward to solutions - When to use: Use when an open paradoxical problem keeps resisting solutions inside the frame it arrived in, when conventional problem solving has only produced more of the symptom, or when the way a problem is framed is itself the obstacle and a fresh standpoint would be worth more than another solution attempt. - Produces: frame-proposal - Also known as: Frame Innovation, framing, frame-storming by analogy, designerly reframing, Dorst frame creation - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-far-analogy-ideation, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-frame-creation/ #### think-problem-restatement - Name: Problem Restatement - Family: problem-framing-and-reframing - Evidence tier: M/P - Mechanism: rewrite the problem several ways, pick a better frame - When to use: Use when a problem is vague, arrived as a symptom or a pre-baked solution, or before committing significant work to solving the wrong thing. - Produces: problem-frame-set - Also known as: Problem reframing - Used in recipes: expand-options, reframe-problem - Pairs with: think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, think-scamper, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-problem-restatement/ ### Assumption and belief challenge #### think-analysis-of-competing-hypotheses - Name: Analysis of Competing Hypotheses (ACH) - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: X - Contested lens: warn-and-redirect, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: score every piece of evidence against every hypothesis for its power to disprove, and favor the hypothesis with the least inconsistent evidence - When to use: Handles a by-name request for ACH (Analysis of Competing Hypotheses), the evidence-by-hypothesis disconfirmation matrix, honestly. Controlled trials found ACH raises confidence with no accuracy gain and does not reduce confirmation bias, so this skill does NOT build the matrix as if valid. It leads with that evidence, then routes to the evidence-based move the job actually needs (think-red-team-light, think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, or think-what-would-have-to-be-true). Use only when someone asks for ACH or a competing-hypotheses matrix by name. - Produces: honest-redirect-brief - Also known as: ACH, competing hypotheses matrix, evidence diagnosticity matrix, hypothesis testing matrix - Pairs with: think-red-team-light, think-evidence-vs-inference-sort - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-analysis-of-competing-hypotheses/ #### think-argument-mapping - Name: Argument Mapping - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: diagram claim, reasons, co-premises, objections - When to use: Use when an argument or recommendation must be evaluated for soundness, or when a fluent case may be hiding a broken inference. - Produces: argument-map - Also known as: Argument map - Used in recipes: issue-position-argument-mapping - Pairs with: think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, think-ladder-of-inference-check - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-argument-mapping/ #### think-authentic-dissent - Name: Authentic Dissent - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: engineer for genuine minority dissent (not role-played) - When to use: Use when consensus feels too easy, or to set up genuine challenge before a high-stakes call. - Produces: dissent-audit - Pairs with: think-red-team-light, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-authentic-dissent/ #### think-consider-the-unknowns - Name: Consider the unknowns - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: M - Mechanism: before committing to a judgment, explicitly list the relevant variables you cannot observe and weigh the gap they leave - When to use: Use when a consequential one-off judgment rests on thin or partial evidence, no usable base rate exists, and the confidence on the table may be inflated by what was never looked at. Not for cases with a real reference class, for widening a numeric interval, or for unknowns cheap enough to just go resolve. - Produces: known-unknowns-ledger - Also known as: known unknowns check, missing-information audit, epistemic gap mapping, omission neglect debiasing, CTU - Pairs with: think-reference-class-forecasting, think-red-team-light, think-what-would-have-to-be-true - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-consider-the-unknowns/ #### think-evidence-vs-inference-sort - Name: Evidence vs Inference Sort - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: label claims evidence / inference / assumption - When to use: Use when a recommendation must be trusted, or when you need to audit the reasoning behind a conclusion in a high-stakes context. - Produces: evidence-inference-ledger - Used in recipes: audit-reasoning, reframe-problem - Pairs with: think-ladder-of-inference-check, think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-evidence-vs-inference-sort/ #### think-ladder-of-inference-check - Name: Ladder of Inference Check - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: reconstruct the climb from data to conclusion - When to use: Use when a conclusion feels certain but rests on interpretation, or to audit a contested inference. - Produces: reasoning-trace - Also known as: Ladder of Inference - Used in recipes: audit-reasoning - Pairs with: think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-ladder-of-inference-check/ #### think-natural-frequency-bayesian - Name: Natural-frequency Bayesian framing - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: re-express conditional probabilities as frequencies - When to use: Use when interpreting a test result, screening signal, or any "given a positive, what is the real probability" question. - Produces: natural-frequency-breakdown - Also known as: Natural frequencies, frequency framing - Pairs with: think-evidence-vs-inference-sort, think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-natural-frequency-bayesian/ #### think-what-would-have-to-be-true - Name: What Would Have to Be True - Family: assumption-and-belief-challenge - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: turn a claim into testable conditions - When to use: Use when evaluating a strategic bet, or when a disagreement has become a clash of opinions rather than evidence. - Produces: assumption-ledger - Also known as: WWHTBT - Used in recipes: stress-test-decision - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-what-would-have-to-be-true/ ### Risk, failure, and resilience #### think-backcasting - Name: Backcasting - Family: risk-failure-and-resilience - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: from a desired future, work back to the path - When to use: Use when planning toward a transformative or long-horizon goal that forward planning anchors too low, when a chosen future needs a route mapped back to today, or when milestones and dependencies between now and the goal must be made explicit. - Produces: backcast-path - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-backcasting/ #### think-premortem - Name: Premortem - Family: risk-failure-and-resilience - Evidence tier: S/M - Mechanism: imagine the plan failed, work back to causes - When to use: Use when about to commit to a launch, hire, investment, migration, or any risky, hard-to-reverse decision, or when you need risks surfaced before committing. - Produces: risk-register - Also known as: Pre-mortem, prospective hindsight - Used in recipes: kepner-tregoe, stress-test-decision - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-what-would-have-to-be-true - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-premortem/ #### think-reference-class-forecasting - Name: Reference Class Forecasting - Family: risk-failure-and-resilience - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: anchor an estimate on the base rate of comparable cases - When to use: Use when forecasting cost, time, or odds of success for a project prone to optimism or the planning fallacy. - Produces: reference-class-estimate - Also known as: RCF, outside view - Used in recipes: stress-test-decision - Pairs with: think-premortem, think-what-would-have-to-be-true - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-reference-class-forecasting/ #### think-woop - Name: WOOP / MCII - Family: risk-failure-and-resilience - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: wish-outcome-obstacle-plan with an if-then - When to use: Use when a goal is already chosen but follow-through keeps failing, or to close the gap between intention and action. - Produces: woop-card - Also known as: WOOP, MCII, Mental Contrasting - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-woop/ ### Systems and consequences #### think-causal-layered-analysis - Name: Causal Layered Analysis - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: C - Mechanism: read an issue at four depths (litany / system / worldview / myth-metaphor), then reconstruct each layer into alternative futures anchored by a rewritten guiding metaphor - When to use: Use when an issue is stuck because the framing is stuck, the official account and the system explanation have been argued to exhaustion, and the real disagreement is about clashing worldviews and the unexamined story underneath. Not a single-cause diagnosis (that is think-iceberg-model) and not a forecast. - Produces: four-layer-matrix - Also known as: CLA, litany-system-worldview-myth, poststructural futures method - Pairs with: think-scenario-planning, think-frame-creation, think-boundary-critique - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-causal-layered-analysis/ #### think-causal-loop-diagrams - Name: Causal Loop Diagrams - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: M/P - Mechanism: diagram reinforcing/balancing feedback loops - When to use: Use when a situation feeds back on itself - growth that funds more growth, a fix that recreates its own problem, capacity that relieves then re-attracts demand - and you need to see why it keeps accelerating, stalling, or overshooting. Not for a single accumulation, a one-directional consequence tree, or a genuinely linear chain. - Produces: signed-causal-loop-diagram - Also known as: CLD, Causal loop diagram - Pairs with: think-stocks-and-flows-reasoning, think-iceberg-model - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-causal-loop-diagrams/ #### think-futures-wheel - Name: Futures Wheel - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: map first/second/third-order consequences outward - When to use: Use when a decision has knock-on effects over time, or when first-order thinking is missing downstream risks and opportunities. - Produces: consequence-map - Pairs with: think-premortem, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-futures-wheel/ #### think-iceberg-model - Name: Iceberg Model - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: events -> patterns -> structures -> mental models - When to use: Use when a problem keeps recurring despite event-level fixes, when a symptom is being treated as a one-off, or when the question is why this keeps happening and where to actually intervene. - Produces: iceberg - Also known as: Iceberg of systems thinking - Pairs with: think-futures-wheel, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-iceberg-model/ #### think-process-tracing - Name: Process tracing - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: test rival causal explanations of a single case by each piece of evidence's diagnosticity (hoop, smoking-gun, straw-in-the-wind, doubly-decisive tests) - When to use: Use when one outcome has happened, several genuine rival explanations compete to explain it, and mechanism-level evidence (logs, timestamps, documents, who knew what when) is available to discriminate them - an incident postmortem, a churn spike, a lost deal, a metric anomaly. Not for cross-case generalization, not a consistency-matrix scoring tally, and not for cases with no rivals on the table. - Produces: rival-explanation-evidence-ledger - Also known as: hoop test, smoking gun test, within-case causal tracing, Bayesian process tracing, causal process observations - Pairs with: think-iceberg-model, think-issue-tree, think-red-team-light - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-process-tracing/ #### think-qualitative-comparative-analysis - Name: Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: P - Contested lens: warn-and-redirect, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: code several comparable cases as combinations of conditions in a truth table and derive which configurations are necessary or sufficient for the outcome - When to use: Handles a by-name request for QCA (Qualitative Comparative Analysis), the truth-table-and-Boolean-minimization method, honestly. At session scale the input almost never exists and the method certifies configurations from noise, so this skill does NOT build the truth table as if valid. It leads with that evidence, then routes to the evidence-based move the job actually needs (think-reference-class-forecasting for a set of comparable cases, or process tracing in prose for one case). Use only when someone asks for QCA or a truth-table minimization by name. - Produces: honest-redirect-brief - Also known as: QCA, crisp-set QCA, fuzzy-set QCA, fsQCA, configurational analysis, truth-table analysis - Pairs with: think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-qualitative-comparative-analysis/ #### think-stocks-and-flows-reasoning - Name: Stocks and Flows reasoning - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: reason about accumulations and rates - When to use: Use when a problem involves an accumulation (cash, debt, backlog, headcount, customer base, technical debt, emissions) and intuition about whether it is rising or falling may be wrong. - Produces: stock-flow-map - Also known as: Stocks and flows, stock-and-flow - Pairs with: think-iceberg-model, think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-stocks-and-flows-reasoning/ #### think-theory-of-constraints - Name: Theory of Constraints - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: find the single binding constraint capping throughput and attach its exploit / subordinate / elevate decisions (the five focusing steps) - When to use: Use when a system has a clear flow (a pipeline, a funnel, a queue, an approval chain, a production line) whose output is capped by one step and improvement effort is being spread evenly across all steps instead of aimed at the bottleneck. Not for coverage questions (route to think-issue-tree), recurring deep-cause questions (route to think-iceberg-model), or accumulation-trajectory questions (route to think-stocks-and-flows-reasoning). - Produces: constraint-intervention-plan - Also known as: TOC, bottleneck analysis, five focusing steps, constraint management - Pairs with: think-iceberg-model, think-stocks-and-flows-reasoning, think-issue-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-theory-of-constraints/ #### think-three-horizons - Name: Three Horizons - Family: systems-and-consequences - Evidence tier: C - Mechanism: hold three overlapping change curves (declining present H1, contested transition H2, emerging desired future H3) on one time canvas, locate the actor, and read the transition dynamics - When to use: Use when a group is stuck in a present-versus-future binary and needs to govern the managed decline of the old system and the cultivation of the new one at once. Not a single backward path from one fixed future, and not a set of ranked external futures. - Produces: three-horizons-transition-map - Also known as: 3 Horizons, Three Horizons of Growth, Three Horizons framework, H1 H2 H3 - Pairs with: think-backcasting, think-scenario-planning, think-futures-wheel - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-three-horizons/ ### Decision and option evaluation #### think-complexity-domain-sort - Name: Complexity Domain Sort - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: C - Contested lens: run-caveat-first, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: sort clear / complicated / complex / chaotic - When to use: Runs a Complexity Domain Sort, sorting a situation into Clear, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, or Confusion and choosing the response posture that fits, caveat-first. It leads with the weak evidence (the 2021 PMC internal-medicine review found scientific proof of its validity has yet to be provided), then forces the discipline the bare label lacks, namely an explicit response posture and a concrete next action rather than just a name. Use only when this complexity sort (also known as Cynefin) is asked for by name; for cause decomposition prefer think-issue-tree. - Produces: complexity-domain-sort-with-actions - Also known as: Cynefin, Cynefin framework, complexity domains - Pairs with: think-issue-tree, think-scenario-planning - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-complexity-domain-sort/ #### think-decision-journal - Name: Decision Journal - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: record decision + expectation + confidence for calibration - When to use: Use when committing to a consequential, uncertain decision (a launch, hire, investment, bet, or strategic choice) and you want to lock in the prediction now to defeat hindsight bias and build calibration, or when pairing a record-now step with a later review. - Produces: decision-journal-entry - Also known as: Decision diary - Pairs with: think-after-action-review, think-premortem, think-one-way-vs-two-way-door - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-decision-journal/ #### think-decision-option-review - Name: Decision Option Review - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: compare options against weighted criteria - When to use: Use when choosing among several real options, or when a decision needs its tradeoffs made explicit rather than left to intuition. - Produces: option-matrix - Also known as: Weighted decision matrix - Used in recipes: idea-quality-audit, issue-position-argument-mapping, kepner-tregoe, pdca-a3, stress-test-decision - Pairs with: think-what-would-have-to-be-true, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-decision-option-review/ #### think-dialectical-bootstrapping - Name: Dialectical bootstrapping - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: M - Mechanism: estimate, assume the estimate is wrong and list why, estimate again from those changed assumptions, then average the two numbers - When to use: Use when a hard, one-off, bounded-scale numeric estimate (a year, a percentage, a count, a forecast) is about to be committed and no second judge, no real reference class, and no better data are available. Not for easy questions, not for unbounded order-of-magnitude unknowns, and never a cherry-picked single number in place of the average. - Produces: dialectical-estimate - Also known as: crowd within, wisdom of many in one mind, self-averaging estimates, contradict-yourself estimation, inner crowd - Pairs with: think-fermi-estimation, think-reference-class-forecasting, think-red-team-light - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-dialectical-bootstrapping/ #### think-eisenhower-moscow-pareto - Name: Eisenhower / MoSCoW / Pareto - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Contested lens: run-caveat-first, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: urgent-important triage; vital-few focus - When to use: Runs one of the three lightweight prioritization presets (Eisenhower urgent-important 2x2, MoSCoW Must/Should/Could/Wont bucketing, or Pareto vital-few cut) caveat-first. It leads with the fact that this is a bundle of three different operations stapled by the word "prioritization", not one move, and each is weakly evidenced, then produces the one preset the user named with the discipline a canned template lacks. Use only when an Eisenhower matrix, MoSCoW list, or Pareto chart is asked for by name; for the rigorous versions prefer think-theory-of-constraints, think-one-way-vs-two-way-door, or think-decision-option-review. - Produces: prioritization-preset-artifact - Also known as: Eisenhower matrix, urgent-important matrix, time management matrix, MoSCoW, Must Should Could Wont, Pareto, 80/20, 80-20 rule, vital few - Pairs with: think-theory-of-constraints, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-eisenhower-moscow-pareto/ #### think-expected-value-decision-tree - Name: Expected-value / decision-tree - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: price the uncertainty: a tree of choice and chance nodes, rolled back to an expected value per option, with a what-flips-it sensitivity note - When to use: Use when a decision turns on uncertain outcomes you can put rough probabilities on, when the structure is sequential (a choice opens chance events that open later choices), and when the stakes justify making the probability assumptions explicit and inspectable instead of buried in a gut feel. - Produces: decision-tree-ev - Also known as: Expected value, Decision tree, EV, expected-utility, decision analysis - Pairs with: think-reference-class-forecasting, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-expected-value-decision-tree/ #### think-fermi-estimation - Name: Fermi estimation - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: M/P - Mechanism: structured order-of-magnitude estimate from decomposition - When to use: Use when you need a number and no lookup-able data or genuine reference class exists, so the magnitude has to be built from factors (for example sizing a market, a load, a cost, or a conversion you cannot look up). Not for forecasting from real base rates (use reference-class-forecasting) or decomposing a question for coverage with no number (use issue-tree). - Produces: fermi-decomposition-worksheet - Also known as: Fermi problem, order-of-magnitude estimation - Pairs with: think-reference-class-forecasting, think-issue-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-fermi-estimation/ #### think-interest-based-negotiation - Name: Interest-based negotiation (BATNA / principled negotiation) - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: separate both sides' interests from their positions, decide against your BATNA inside the mapped ZOPA, and invent options for mutual gain across differently-valued issues before dividing value - When to use: Use when agreement is required from a party not under your control and more than one issue is in play (salary, vendor, partnership, resource, or multi-party disputes), and a position fight has hardened before anyone checked whether the interests actually conflict. Preparation deskwork only, not live-table tactics, and not for a single-issue distributive haggle or a choice with no counterparty. - Produces: negotiation-preparation-map - Also known as: principled negotiation, BATNA, getting to yes, interest-based bargaining, mutual gains approach, ZOPA, zone of possible agreement, integrative negotiation, win-win negotiation, Harvard negotiation method - Pairs with: think-expected-value-decision-tree, think-decision-option-review, think-boundary-critique - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-interest-based-negotiation/ #### think-linear-model-aggregation - Name: Mechanical / linear-model aggregation - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: combine cues with a simple fixed formula instead of holistic judgment - When to use: Use when the same kind of evaluative judgment recurs (screening candidates, scoring leads, triaging) and gut calls are inconsistent or overconfident. - Produces: scoring-model - Also known as: Linear model aggregation, Mechanical aggregation, improper linear models, Dawes' rule - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-natural-frequency-bayesian - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-linear-model-aggregation/ #### think-minimax-regret - Name: Minimax regret - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: minimize worst-case regret: build a regret (opportunity-loss) matrix over un-probabilized states and choose the option whose maximum regret is smallest - When to use: Use when a few discrete options face a few discrete uncontrollable states and no defensible probabilities exist. Not an expected-value tree (which needs probabilities) and not an attribute scorecard. - Produces: regret-matrix - Also known as: Savage minimax regret, Savage criterion, minimax regret criterion, regret matrix, minimum maximum regret - Pairs with: think-scenario-planning, think-expected-value-decision-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-minimax-regret/ #### think-one-way-vs-two-way-door - Name: One-way vs Two-way Door - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: classify by reversibility, match deliberation - When to use: Use when it is unclear how much process a decision deserves, when a team is about to rubber-stamp something irreversible or convene a committee over something trivially reversible, or when a chronically slow org needs a defensible reason to move fast or slow down. - Produces: reversibility-classification - Also known as: Reversibility test, Type 1 / Type 2 decisions - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review, think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-one-way-vs-two-way-door/ #### think-pairwise-comparison - Name: Pairwise comparison - Family: decision-and-option-evaluation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: rank when you cannot score: judge items two at a time, tally the binary wins into a comparison matrix, and derive an order without an absolute scale - When to use: Use when items must be ranked but no defensible scale or articulable criteria exist. Not a criteria-weighted option matrix and not a base-rate forecast. - Produces: pairwise-comparison-matrix - Also known as: Paired comparison, paired comparison analysis, comparative judgement, Analytic Hierarchy Process, AHP, PAPRIKA, Thurstone scaling, Bradley-Terry - Pairs with: think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-pairwise-comparison/ ### Strategy and opportunity #### think-scenario-planning - Name: Scenario planning - Family: strategy-and-opportunity - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: construct a set of divergent, internally consistent external futures (2x2 critical-uncertainty axes), then robustness-test strategy across them - When to use: Use when the planning horizon is long and the decisive forces are outside control and not reliably predictable, and a single implicit forecast is driving the strategy. Not forecasting and not a single preferred path. - Produces: scenario-set - Also known as: Scenario analysis, 2x2 scenarios, intuitive logics, critical-uncertainties matrix - Pairs with: think-backcasting, think-premortem, think-futures-wheel - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-scenario-planning/ #### think-swot - Name: SWOT - Family: strategy-and-opportunity - Evidence tier: X - Contested lens: run-caveat-first, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: strengths / weaknesses / opportunities / threats - When to use: Runs a SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) caveat-first. It leads with the weak evidence (Hill and Westbrook 1997 found real SWOT grids did not amount to analysis), then forces the discipline a bare grid lacks, namely evidence-tagged and prioritized factors plus a TOWS matching step that turns the four lists into strategic options. Use only when a SWOT or TOWS is asked for by name; for genuine situation decomposition prefer think-issue-tree. - Produces: swot-tows-option-set - Also known as: SWOT analysis - Pairs with: think-issue-tree, think-what-would-have-to-be-true - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-swot/ ### Synthesis and reasoning clarity #### think-affinity-mapping - Name: Affinity Mapping - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: cluster many notes into emergent themes (bottom-up) - When to use: Use when a scattered pile of dozens to hundreds of existing items needs to become a few emergent themes, such as synthesizing user-research notes, support tickets, survey free-text, or retro stickies, and the right structure should emerge from the data rather than be imposed. - Produces: clustered-theme-map - Also known as: Affinity diagram, KJ method - Pairs with: think-brainwriting, think-issue-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-affinity-mapping/ #### think-concept-mapping - Name: Concept Mapping - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: M/P - Mechanism: diagram concepts and labeled relationships - When to use: Use when a domain has many interrelated concepts and the goal is to externalize and inspect how they relate, forcing every relationship to be named rather than left as a vague association. - Produces: concept-map - Also known as: Concept map - Pairs with: think-affinity-mapping, think-argument-mapping - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-concept-mapping/ #### think-contradiction-tension-mapping - Name: Contradiction / Tension Mapping (Polarity Mapping) - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: C - Mechanism: map an unsolvable polarity as both/and rather than smoothing it - name the two interdependent poles, the upside and downside of each, the greater purpose that makes managing both worthwhile, plus early-warning signs and action steps for staying in the productive zone - When to use: Use when an organization keeps oscillating destructively between two opposites that are both true and interdependent (centralize versus decentralize, stability versus change, candor versus diplomacy), and treating each swing as a problem to solve is the actual mistake. Not for a dissolvable trade-off and not for a real either/or choice. - Produces: polarity-map - Also known as: Polarity Mapping, Polarity Management, Polarity Thinking, Tension mapping, both/and mapping, paradox mapping, dilemma mapping - Pairs with: think-contradiction-resolution, think-decision-option-review, think-problem-restatement - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-contradiction-tension-mapping/ #### think-issue-tree - Name: Issue Trees - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: decompose a question into a MECE tree - When to use: Use when a question is too broad or multi-cause to answer as posed (for example "why is churn rising?", "where is margin leaking?", "should we launch a free tier?"), when analysis work must be split into non-overlapping parts, or when coverage matters and missing a whole category would be costly. Not for evaluating a given argument's soundness (use argument-mapping) or clustering existing notes (use affinity-mapping). - Produces: issue-tree - Also known as: Issue tree, Logic tree - Used in recipes: issue-position-argument-mapping, kepner-tregoe, pdca-a3 - Pairs with: think-problem-restatement, think-argument-mapping - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-issue-tree/ #### think-pyramid-principle - Name: Pyramid Principle - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: answer-first governing thought + grouped support - When to use: Use when a conclusion or recommendation already exists and must be communicated clearly to a busy or senior reader, when findings need to be ordered into a tight top-down case, or when a write-up buries its point under context. - Produces: pyramid - Pairs with: think-issue-tree, think-argument-mapping, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-pyramid-principle/ #### think-walton-argumentation-schemes - Name: Argumentation schemes with critical questions - Family: synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: identify which stereotyped argument pattern is in play, then test it with that scheme's standard critical questions - When to use: Use when a single presumptive argument rests on an authority's say-so, a load-bearing analogy, a slippery-slope objection, or a consequence-based case, and the question is whether its presumption survives the standard defeaters for that pattern. Not for structurally complex multi-premise arguments (use argument-mapping) and not for deductive or statistical proof. - Produces: scheme-critique-sheet - Also known as: Walton schemes, presumptive reasoning schemes, critical questions method, argument scheme critique - Pairs with: think-argument-mapping, think-red-team-light, think-evidence-vs-inference-sort - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-walton-argumentation-schemes/ ### Meta-thinking and reflection #### think-after-action-review - Name: After Action Review - Family: meta-thinking-and-reflection - Evidence tier: S - Mechanism: expected vs actual -> why -> sustain/change - When to use: Use when a project, launch, sprint, or incident has finished and you want to turn the outcome into learning, not a status update. - Produces: after-action-review - Also known as: AAR - Used in recipes: pdca-a3 - Pairs with: think-premortem, think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-after-action-review/ #### think-belief-update-routine - Name: Belief-update routine - Family: meta-thinking-and-reflection - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: periodically revisit and update key beliefs vs new evidence - When to use: Use when you hold consequential open beliefs, forecasts, or standing assumptions that should track new evidence over time and you want a disciplined, recurring re-score - not a one-time decision record, a finished-event retro, or a single claim's conditions. - Produces: belief-update-ledger - Also known as: Belief updating, Bayesian belief update - Pairs with: think-decision-journal, think-after-action-review, think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-belief-update-routine/ #### think-interval-calibration-check - Name: Interval calibration check - Family: meta-thinking-and-reflection - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: test a stated confidence interval against an equivalent bet, widen until indifferent, then score stated confidence against the actual hit rate wherever outcomes resolve - When to use: Use when a human-stated interval or confidence number drives a consequential plan, forecast, or commitment and has never been audited, and the worry is overprecision rather than a wrong central estimate. Calibrates human-stated uncertainty only, never the agent's own confidence, and resizes width without relocating the number. Not for lookupable facts and not a promise of full debiasing. - Produces: calibration-scorecard - Also known as: calibration training, equivalent bet test, probability wheel calibration, confidence calibration, Brier-scored calibration practice, overprecision check - Pairs with: think-decision-journal, think-reference-class-forecasting, think-expected-value-decision-tree - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-interval-calibration-check/ ### Ethics and values deliberation #### think-ethical-matrix - Name: Ethical Matrix - Family: ethics-values-deliberation - Evidence tier: P - Mechanism: grid affected parties (rows, including voiceless ones) against prima facie principles (wellbeing, autonomy, fairness) and read the cell-level pattern of trade-offs - When to use: Use when a concrete proposal affects multiple parties with a genuine moral trade-off among them, some affected parties have no voice, and an ethics debate keeps sliding between groups and principles. Not a decision calculator and not an option-versus-criteria scorer; the matrix maps the terrain and leaves the weighing to deliberation. - Produces: ethical-matrix - Also known as: Mepham's ethical matrix, stakeholder-principle grid, principlism grid, four-principles grid - Pairs with: think-boundary-critique, think-parallel-perspectives-review, think-decision-option-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-ethical-matrix/ #### think-reflective-equilibrium - Name: Reflective equilibrium - Family: ethics-values-deliberation - Evidence tier: C - Contested lens: run-caveat-first, explicit-request-only (leads with its evidence caveat) - Mechanism: iterate between case judgments and general principles, revising whichever fits worse, until they cohere - When to use: Runs reflective equilibrium (mutual adjustment between considered case judgments, general principles, and background theories) caveat-first. It leads with the weak evidence (philosophically central since Rawls 1971 but empirically untested as a procedure, with three failure modes that bite in a bounded session), then forces the discipline a bare run lacks, namely an explicit revision ledger that records which commitment gave way and why. Use only when reflective equilibrium is asked for by name; for impartial allocation prefer think-veil-of-ignorance-reasoning, for a parties-by-principles audit think-ethical-matrix. - Produces: coherence-set-with-revision-ledger - Also known as: wide reflective equilibrium, narrow reflective equilibrium, considered-judgment balancing - Pairs with: think-veil-of-ignorance-reasoning, think-ethical-matrix - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-reflective-equilibrium/ #### think-speculative-harms-anti-goals - Name: Speculative harms and anti-goals - Family: ethics-values-deliberation - Evidence tier: A - Mechanism: assume the design succeeds at scale, narrate the dystopian near-future in which it harms third parties and is exploited in bad faith, then convert each harm into an explicit anti-goal constraining the design - When to use: Use when a feature's success case could externalize harm onto people outside the customer relationship (location, ranking, inference, targeting, automation) and the team's risk review is entirely project-centric. Not a premortem (route plan-survival risk there), not for present documented harms (route to incident analysis), and not a security threat model. - Produces: anti-goals-register - Also known as: black mirror brainstorm, black mirror writers room, dystopian premortem, anti-goals speculation, speculative ethics writers room - Pairs with: think-premortem, think-ethical-matrix, think-futures-wheel - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-speculative-harms-anti-goals/ #### think-veil-of-ignorance-reasoning - Name: Veil-of-ignorance reasoning - Family: ethics-values-deliberation - Evidence tier: M - Mechanism: decide a values trade-off as if you had an equal chance of being any affected party, then return to the actual decision and confront the gap - When to use: Use when a decision distributes benefit and burden across parties, the decider is one of those parties, and the risk is a self-serving call dressed as fairness. Not a neutral verdict, not forecasting, and not for cases where desert, promises, or compensatory claims make identity morally load-bearing. - Produces: veiled-decision-comparison - Also known as: veil of ignorance, original position reasoning, impartiality framing, Rawlsian veil, VOI reasoning - Pairs with: think-boundary-critique, think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/frameworks/think-veil-of-ignorance-reasoning/ ## Tools #### think-framework-advisor - Name: Framework Advisor - Evidence tier: M/C - Mechanism: Produces a prioritized, evidence-graded Thinking Plan that diagnoses which thinking frameworks a situation actually needs - the dominant cognitive job, a short sequence of the fewest fitting frameworks to apply (each with its evidence tier, expected artifact, and a ready-to-run prompt), and what not to use. - When to use: Produces a prioritized, evidence-graded Thinking Plan that diagnoses which thinking frameworks a situation actually needs - the dominant cognitive job, a short sequence of the fewest fitting frameworks to apply (each with its evidence tier, expected artifact, and a ready-to-run prompt), and what not to use. Recommends only frameworks this library ships. Use when unsure which thinking method or skill fits a decision, problem, or stuck point, when overwhelmed by where to start, or when you need a recommended plan of which frameworks to use and why rather than running one yourself. - Produces: thinking-plan - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/tools/think-framework-advisor/ #### think-random-frameworks - Name: Random Frameworks - Evidence tier: C - Mechanism: Generates three off-pattern framework analyses of a topic by drawing frameworks at random, applying each regardless of fit, and harvesting the non-obvious angles the unexpected lenses expose. - When to use: Generates three off-pattern framework analyses of a topic by drawing frameworks at random, applying each regardless of fit, and harvesting the non-obvious angles the unexpected lenses expose. Use when a framing feels frozen or fixated and the goal is to break out of it with deliberately unranked methods rather than the obvious best-fit ones. Use when relevance-ranked selection would only reinforce the stuck view and a random draw is wanted to surface what a fitted analysis would miss. - Produces: applied-framework-set - Pairs with: think-top3, think-framework-advisor - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/tools/think-random-frameworks/ #### think-research-framework - Name: Research Framework - Mechanism: Researches a thinking framework end to end and produces a schema-valid proposed registry entry plus a learning dossier, grading the evidence on the seven-tier model and assessing overlap against the shipped catalog. - When to use: Researches a thinking framework end to end and produces a schema-valid proposed registry entry plus a learning dossier, grading the evidence on the seven-tier model and assessing overlap against the shipped catalog. Use when you need an honest evidence grade and a build-or-fold verdict for a candidate method before turning it into a skill, when reproducing the evidence-and-overlap vetting on a method the catalog already judged, or when you need a ranked shortlist of new candidate methods in a family. - Produces: proposed-registry-entry - Pairs with: think-framework-advisor - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/tools/think-research-framework/ #### think-top3 - Name: Top3 - Evidence tier: C - Mechanism: Produces a worked three-framework analysis of a topic. - When to use: Produces a worked three-framework analysis of a topic. Ranks the library's thinking frameworks for relevance, applies the top three so each emits its real artifact, and reconciles them into one cross-framework synthesis. Use when a decision, problem, or stuck point deserves more than one lens and the goal is worked output now rather than a plan of which methods to run later. Use when several frameworks plausibly fit and the most relevant few should be ranked, executed, and integrated into a single read. - Produces: applied-framework-set - Pairs with: think-framework-advisor - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/tools/think-top3/ ## Recipes #### think-audit-reasoning - When to use: Check whether a conclusion is sound before trusting it, by sorting evidence from inference, reconstructing the inferential climb, and reviewing through separated lenses. - Steps: think-evidence-vs-inference-sort -> think-ladder-of-inference-check -> think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/audit-reasoning/ #### think-expand-options - When to use: Break past the obvious option set by reframing the problem, transforming the seed with SCAMPER, and reversing its foundational assumptions, then shortlisting candidates. - Steps: think-problem-restatement -> think-scamper -> think-assumption-reversal - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/expand-options/ #### think-first-principles - When to use: Reason from fundamentals by decomposing a problem to its irreducible level, then stripping the inherited assumptions, so you rebuild from what is actually necessary rather than from convention or analogy. - Steps: think-abstraction-laddering -> think-assumption-reversal - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/first-principles/ #### think-idea-quality-audit - When to use: Decide which of a batch of candidate ideas are worth committing to, by scoring them on explicit quality dimensions and then adversarially stress-testing the strongest few. - Steps: think-decision-option-review -> think-red-team-light - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/idea-quality-audit/ #### think-issue-position-argument-mapping - When to use: Turn a tangled multi-question deliberation or transcript into an inspectable typed map by chaining shipped moves, surfacing the open issues, attaching rival positions to each, and running a pro/con pass on each position, so a sprawling debate becomes a navigable structure. - Steps: think-issue-tree -> think-decision-option-review -> think-argument-mapping - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/issue-position-argument-mapping/ #### think-kepner-tregoe - When to use: Run the Kepner-Tregoe rational process as a chain of shipped moves, taking a bounded operational problem through cause-finding, then a weighted choice among options, then a forward risk pass, so a fix is de-risked end to end. - Steps: think-issue-tree -> think-decision-option-review -> think-premortem - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/kepner-tregoe/ #### think-pdca-a3 - When to use: Run the Plan-Do-Check-Act improvement loop as a chain of shipped moves, taking a performance gap through root-cause and countermeasure choice, then a structured review of actual versus expected, then a standardize-or-iterate decision. - Steps: think-issue-tree -> think-decision-option-review -> think-after-action-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/pdca-a3/ #### think-reframe-problem - When to use: Make sure you are solving the right problem before generating solutions, by restating it, sorting evidence from inference, and reviewing it through separated lenses. - Steps: think-problem-restatement -> think-evidence-vs-inference-sort -> think-parallel-perspectives-review - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/reframe-problem/ #### think-stress-test-decision - When to use: Pressure-test a consequential decision before committing, by comparing options, surfacing the conditions that must hold, imagining failure, and sanity-checking the estimate against base rates. - Steps: think-decision-option-review -> think-what-would-have-to-be-true -> think-premortem -> think-reference-class-forecasting - URL: https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/recipes/stress-test-decision/ ## Evaluated, not shipped The 72 methods that were evaluated and graded but do not ship as skills, with the verdict and where each folds. Full reasoning is in the Framework Library. - alternate-uses-constraint-insertion-removal (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier P; fold/fold, folds into assumption-reversal): loosen functional fixedness; add/strip a constraint https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/alternate-uses-constraint-insertion-removal/ - belbin-team-roles (self-and-team-awareness; tier C; excl/reject): map a team against nine complementary contribution roles to surface gaps and overlaps https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/belbin-team-roles/ - blue-ocean-tools (strategy-and-opportunity; tier V; flag/reject): strategy canvas / four actions https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/blue-ocean-tools/ - cliftonstrengths (self-and-team-awareness; tier V; excl/reject): rank a person across 34 talent themes from a proprietary forced-choice assessment https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/cliftonstrengths/ - cognitive-bias-checklist (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier C; excl/reject): run a decision against relevant biases https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/cognitive-bias-checklist/ - concept-knowledge-theory (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier C; excl/reject): partition design work into a concept space of undecidable propositions and a knowledge space, and iterate the four operators (C-C, C-K, K-C, K-K) between them https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/concept-knowledge-theory/ - counterfactual-reasoning (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier P; fold/fold, folds into after-action-review): examine 'what if X had been different' https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/counterfactual-reasoning/ - crazy-8s (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier P; fold/fold, folds into brainwriting): eight sketches in eight minutes https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/crazy-8s/ - decision-brief-pr-faq (decision-and-option-evaluation; tier V; pm/reject): force a decision into a short structured memo https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/decision-brief-pr-faq/ - devils-advocacy (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier X; flag/reject): assign someone to argue against https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/devils-advocacy/ - dialectical-synthesis (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier C; fold/fold, folds into red-team-light): hold thesis/antithesis to a stronger synthesis https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/dialectical-synthesis/ - disc-profile (self-and-team-awareness; tier V; excl/reject): classify behavioral style across dominance, influence, steadiness, conscientiousness https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/disc-profile/ - disney-creative-strategy (perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens; tier A; excl/reject): dreamer/realist/critic cycle https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/disney-creative-strategy/ - dot-voting (facilitation-and-group-structures; tier P; flag/reject): allocate limited votes https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/dot-voting/ - double-crux (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier C; excl/reject): find the single belief whose change would flip each side of a disagreement https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/double-crux/ - enneagram (self-and-team-awareness; tier C; excl/reject): map a person to one of nine interconnected types with wings and stress / growth arrows https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/enneagram/ - estimate-talk-estimate (facilitation-and-group-structures; tier P; excl/reject): collect independent estimates, share only the anonymized spread and rationales, discuss the variance, then re-estimate independently https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/estimate-talk-estimate/ - first-principles (problem-framing-and-reframing; tier P; recipe/recipe): decompose to fundamental truths, reason up - fishbone-ishikawa (systems-and-consequences; tier P; fold/fold, folds into issue-tree): decompose one observed effect into candidate causes grouped under a fixed category checklist (6M/8P) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/fishbone-ishikawa/ - fmea-lite (risk-failure-and-resilience; tier P; fold/fold, folds into premortem): list failure modes by likelihood x severity x detection https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/fmea-lite/ - forced-connections (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier P; fold/fold, folds into far-analogy-ideation): pair the problem with an unrelated stimulus https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/forced-connections/ - frame-storming (problem-framing-and-reframing; tier P; fold/fold, folds into problem-restatement): brainstorm the framing, not the solution https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/frame-storming/ - how-might-we (problem-framing-and-reframing; tier P; fold/fold, folds into problem-restatement): turn an insight into an opportunity question https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/how-might-we/ - ice-rice-wsjf (decision-and-option-evaluation; tier V; flag/reject): prioritization scores https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/ice-rice-wsjf/ - idea-quality-audit (meta-thinking-and-reflection; tier P; recipe/recipe): score and pressure-test a batch of ideas (solo + AI) - ideological-turing-test (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier C; fold/fold, folds into red-team-light): state an opposing view well enough that its holders cannot tell you are not one of them https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/ideological-turing-test/ - insight-statement-generation (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier P; excl/reject): turn observations into sharp, transferable insight statements (the why behind a finding) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/insight-statement-generation/ - inversion (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier P; fold/fold, folds into premortem): ask how to guarantee failure, then avoid it https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/inversion/ - is-is-not-analysis (problem-framing-and-reframing; tier P; fold/fold, folds into problem-restatement): sharpen scope by what the problem is and is not https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/is-is-not-analysis/ - issue-position-argument-mapping (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier P; recipe/recipe): capture a deliberation as a typed graph where positions may only answer issues and arguments may only support or attack positions - jobs-to-be-done (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; flag/reject): frame demand as progress sought https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/jobs-to-be-done/ - kepner-tregoe (decision-and-option-evaluation; tier P; recipe/recipe): the rational-process bundle - situation appraisal routes to problem analysis (cause), decision analysis (MUST/WANT choice), and potential problem analysis (forward risk) - key-assumptions-check (assumption-and-belief-challenge; tier P; excl/reject): inventory and rank a plan's assumptions https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/key-assumptions-check/ - kill-criteria-tripwires (risk-failure-and-resilience; tier P; fold/fold, folds into premortem): pre-decided stop signals and conditions https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/kill-criteria-tripwires/ - kirton-adaption-innovation (self-and-team-awareness; tier C; fold/fold, folds into parallel-perspectives-review): read a problem, plan, or team through the adaptor (do it better) and innovator (do it differently) style poles https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/kirton-adaption-innovation/ - learning-styles-inventory (self-and-team-awareness; tier X; excl/reject): match instruction to a learner's preferred modality (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and so on) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/learning-styles-inventory/ - leverage-points (systems-and-consequences; tier C; fold/fold, folds into iceberg-model): sketch elements/relationships; find intervention points https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/leverage-points/ - lotus-blossom (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier P; fold/fold, folds into issue-tree): fan a center into eight sub-themes, re-center each, and expand again into a recursive idea grid https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/lotus-blossom/ - mbti (self-and-team-awareness; tier X; excl/reject): sort a person into one of sixteen types across four dichotomies https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/mbti/ - mece-decomposition (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier P; fold/fold, folds into issue-tree): mutually-exclusive, collectively-exhaustive split https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/mece-decomposition/ - moat-defensibility-lens (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; pm/reject): test what stops a competitor copying you https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/moat-defensibility-lens/ - multi-criteria-decision-analysis (decision-and-option-evaluation; tier P; fold/fold, folds into decision-option-review): weighted scoring across criteria https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/multi-criteria-decision-analysis/ - note-and-vote (facilitation-and-group-structures; tier P; excl/reject): individual notes, then a group vote, then a single Decider's weighted supervote https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/note-and-vote/ - ooda-loop (decision-and-option-evaluation; tier P; excl/reject): observe-orient-decide-act https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/ooda-loop/ - opportunity-solution-tree (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; pm/reject): outcome -> opportunities -> solutions https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/opportunity-solution-tree/ - outside-in-inside-out-framing (perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens; tier P; fold/fold, folds into parallel-perspectives-review): alternate a market/external view and a capability/internal view, then reconcile https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/outside-in-inside-out-framing/ - pdca-a3 (meta-thinking-and-reflection; tier P; recipe/recipe): plan-do-check-act iterative improvement loop (A3 = the one-page storyboard of one turn) - pestle (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; fold/fold, folds into issue-tree): scan the macro-environment against a fixed category checklist (political/economic/social/technological/legal/environmental) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/pestle/ - porters-five-forces (strategy-and-opportunity; tier V; flag/reject): competitive-structure scan https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/porters-five-forces/ - pre-commitment-ulysses-contract (risk-failure-and-resilience; tier P; fold/fold, folds into woop): bind future behavior in advance against known weakness https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/pre-commitment-ulysses-contract/ - regret-minimization (risk-failure-and-resilience; tier P; fold/fold, folds into one-way-vs-two-way-door): choose the least-future-regret option (project to age 80, pick what you would most regret not trying) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/regret-minimization/ - retro-formats (meta-thinking-and-reflection; tier P; fold/fold, folds into after-action-review): fast retro formats https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/retro-formats/ - riasec-interest-fit (self-and-team-awareness; tier P; fold/fold, folds into decision-option-review): score a role, option, or person against the six fixed interest types (realistic, investigative, artistic, social, enterprising, conventional) and read the fit https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/riasec-interest-fit/ - scaled-participation-formats (facilitation-and-group-structures; tier P; excl/reject): scaled-participation group formats https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/scaled-participation-formats/ - second-order-effects (systems-and-consequences; tier P; fold/fold, folds into futures-wheel): lightweight 'and then what?' prompt https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/second-order-effects/ - sensemaking-matrix (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier C; excl/reject): organize conflicting signals for interpretation https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/sensemaking-matrix/ - silent-writing-before-discussion (facilitation-and-group-structures; tier M; fold/fold, folds into brainwriting): write independently first to prevent anchoring https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/silent-writing-before-discussion/ - six-thinking-hats (perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens; tier X; flag/reject): branded parallel-thinking ritual https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/six-thinking-hats/ - socratic-self-questioning (meta-thinking-and-reflection; tier P; fold/fold, folds into ladder-of-inference-check): disciplined self-interrogation of a belief via a fixed set of probing question-types https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/socratic-self-questioning/ - stakeholder-lens-review (perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens; tier P; fold/fold, folds into parallel-perspectives-review): walk a proposal through each affected party's eyes https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/stakeholder-lens-review/ - steelmanning (perspective-shifting-and-multi-lens; tier P; fold/fold, folds into red-team-light): state the strongest version of an opposing view before responding https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/steelmanning/ - strong-interest-inventory (self-and-team-awareness; tier M; flag/reject): profile vocational interests against occupational reference groups https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/strong-interest-inventory/ - system-archetypes (systems-and-consequences; tier C; fold/fold, folds into causal-loop-diagrams): match a recurring dynamic to a named feedback-structure template (fixes that fail, shifting the burden, tragedy of the commons) and import its canonical leverage prescription https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/system-archetypes/ - toulmin-argument-model (synthesis-and-reasoning-clarity; tier C; fold/fold, folds into argument-mapping): lay out a claim as data, warrant, and backing, with qualifier and rebuttal, to test whether it holds https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/toulmin-argument-model/ - trait-lens-perspective (self-and-team-awareness; tier C; fold/fold, folds into parallel-perspectives-review): view a decision through contrasting personality-trait viewpoints (high vs low openness, conscientiousness, and so on) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/trait-lens-perspective/ - tuckman-group-development (self-and-team-awareness; tier P; excl/reject): diagnose a team's stage on the forming-storming-norming-performing arc to pick the fitting intervention https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/tuckman-group-development/ - value-proposition-contrast (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; pm/reject): sharpen vs the next-best alternative https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/value-proposition-contrast/ - via-character-strengths (self-and-team-awareness; tier C; fold/fold, folds into parallel-perspectives-review): frame a problem or role through signature strengths drawn from the 24-strength classification https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/via-character-strengths/ - wardley-mapping (strategy-and-opportunity; tier C; flag/reject): value chain vs evolution https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/wardley-mapping/ - what-so-what-now-what (meta-thinking-and-reflection; tier P; fold/fold, folds into after-action-review): observation -> meaning -> action https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/what-so-what-now-what/ - white-space-adjacent-possible (strategy-and-opportunity; tier P; pm/reject): locate uncontested or reachable opportunity (white space / adjacent possible / 10x vs incremental) https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/white-space-adjacent-possible/ - worst-possible-idea (divergent-ideation-and-idea-expansion; tier P; fold/fold, folds into assumption-reversal): generate the worst/most-absurd ideas, then flip their bad-making attributes into candidate solutions https://thinking-framework-skills.productonpurpose.com/library/worst-possible-idea/