@event4u/agent-config 1.32.0 → 1.33.0

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/5w2h-analysis.md

@@ -0,0 +1,260 @@
+# 5W2H Analysis
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — the 5W2H systematic
+questioning method (What · Why · Who · When · Where · How · How-much) for
+comprehensive understanding of any topic, problem, or plan. Adopted under
+the **Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** (see frontmatter `upstream` /
+`refresh_trigger` keys) and cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L1 Quick analysis depth.
+- [`refine-ticket`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/refine-ticket/SKILL.md)
+  — completeness check on a Jira / Linear ticket before estimation.
+- [`bug-investigate`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/commands/bug-investigate.md)
+  — gap analysis on an incident report before forming a hypothesis.
+
+> **Core principle:** "Quality of decisions equals quality of questions
+> asked." — 5W2H captures essence in seven dimensions.
+
+## When to Use
+
+Ideal for:
+
+- 📋 Quickly understanding complete article information
+- 🔍 Discovering information gaps and omissions
+- 📊 Evaluating plan feasibility
+- 💼 Analyzing business cases and proposals
+- 📝 Organizing complex information
+- ✅ Verifying information completeness
+
+Do **not** use when the user wants depth on a single dimension (use
+[`mental-models`](mental-models.md)) or pre-mortem on failure paths
+(use [`inversion-thinking`](inversion-thinking.md)).
+
+## The 7 Questions in Detail
+
+### W1: What (Content)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. What is the main topic?
+2. What are the key claims / conclusions?
+3. What solutions are proposed?
+4. What core concepts are involved?
+5. What are the expected outcomes?
+
+**Deep inquiry:** What is the real problem? What is missing? What
+could go wrong? What are the alternatives?
+
+### W2: Why (Reasons)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. Why discuss this topic now?
+2. Why is this solution effective?
+3. Why not choose other approaches?
+4. Why should the audience care?
+5. Why this timing?
+
+**Five Whys technique** — ask "why" five times to reach root cause:
+
+```
+Problem: [Surface issue]
+→ Why 1: [First layer]
+  → Why 2: [Second layer]
+    → Why 3: [Third layer]
+      → Why 4: [Fourth layer]
+        → Why 5: [Root cause] ← Real issue
+```
+
+### W3: Who (People)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. Who is the target audience?
+2. Who are the stakeholders?
+3. Who is responsible for execution?
+4. Who benefits? Who loses?
+5. Whose expertise / cases are cited?
+6. Who is the author? (potential biases?)
+
+**Deep analysis:** stakeholder mapping · decision-makers vs. executors
+· who has veto power.
+
+### W4: When (Timing)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. When to start?
+2. What is the timeline / schedule?
+3. When will results appear?
+4. How time-sensitive is this?
+5. When are key decisions needed?
+6. What is the historical context?
+
+**Time-trap identification:** unrealistic time expectations · missing
+key milestones · buffer time considered.
+
+### W5: Where (Context)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. Where does this apply? (geography, industry, organization)
+2. Where is execution happening?
+3. Where to get resources?
+4. What are the limitations / constraints?
+5. What is the scope of impact?
+
+**Context dependency:** does it work in different environments? ·
+cultural differences · scale considerations.
+
+### H1: How (Methods)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. What are the specific steps?
+2. What tools / methods are used?
+3. How to measure progress?
+4. How to handle obstacles?
+5. How to ensure quality?
+6. How to get started?
+
+**Process mapping:**
+
+```
+[Start] → [Step 1] → [Decision Point]
+                         ↓ Yes / ↓ No
+                    [Step 2A]  [Step 2B]
+                         ↓         ↓
+                    [Step 3] ← [Converge]
+                         ↓
+                    [End]
+```
+
+### H2: How Much (Metrics)
+
+**Core questions:**
+
+1. What is the cost? (money, time, opportunity, learning)
+2. How many resources needed?
+3. What is the expected ROI?
+4. What is the scale / magnitude?
+5. How big are the risks?
+6. What are the target metrics?
+
+**ROI analysis:**
+
+```
+Investment:
+- Direct costs:   [$]
+- Indirect costs: [$]
+- Total:          [$]
+
+Returns:
+- Expected benefit: [$]
+- Timeframe:        [X months]
+- ROI = (Benefit - Cost) / Cost × 100%
+
+Worth it?: [Yes / No]
+```
+
+## Complete Analysis Template
+
+### Quick version (15 min)
+
+```markdown
+# 5W2H Quick Analysis: [Article Title]
+
+**What**:     [One-line topic and solution]
+**Why**:      [Core motivation and value]
+**Who**:      [Target audience and executors]
+**When**:     [Timeline and urgency]
+**Where**:    [Applicability and context]
+**How**:      [Key steps (3–5)]
+**How much**: [Main costs and expected returns]
+
+## Gap Analysis
+
+Missing information: [List unanswered questions from 5W2H]
+Key risks:           [Risks based on missing info]
+```
+
+### Deep version (60 min)
+
+```markdown
+# 5W2H Deep Analysis: [Article Title]
+
+## 📋 What — Content Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+
+## 🎯 Why — Reason Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[Five Whys analysis]
+
+## 👥 Who — People Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[Stakeholder map]
+
+## ⏰ When — Time Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[Timeline visualization]
+
+## 🌍 Where — Context Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[Applicability matrix]
+
+## 🔧 How — Method Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[Process flowchart]
+
+## 💰 How Much — Cost-Benefit Analysis
+[Detailed breakdown…]
+[ROI calculation]
+
+## 📊 Overall Assessment
+
+### Information completeness
+- ✅ Clearly answered:   [X / 7]
+- ⚠️  Partially answered: [List]
+- ❌ Completely missing: [List]
+
+### Feasibility score
+Based on 5W2H completeness: [X / 10]
+
+### Risk level
+Based on missing info: [High / Medium / Low]
+
+### Action recommendations
+1. [Specific recommendation based on analysis]
+2. [Information needed to supplement]
+3. [Priority actions to take]
+```
+
+## Integration with Other Frameworks
+
+### + Critical Thinking
+
+```
+5W2H              → Identify missing information
+Critical Thinking → Evaluate quality of existing information
+```
+
+### + SCQA
+
+```
+SCQA  → Understand problem framework
+5W2H  → Analyze solution completeness
+```
+
+### + Inversion
+
+```
+5W2H      → Forward analysis of plan
+Inversion → For each W / H, ask "what if it's missing?"
+```
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/5w2h_analysis.md` · MIT License.

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/critical-thinking.md

@@ -0,0 +1,156 @@
+# Critical Thinking
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — evaluate
+arguments by their evidence and logic, not by surface plausibility or
+author authority. Identifies fallacies, weighs evidence type,
+steelmans before criticizing. Pairs with `first-principles` (which
+rebuilds from primitives) and `inversion-thinking` (which negates the
+goal). Adopted under the **Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** and
+cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L2 Standard / L3 Deep evaluation depth.
+- [`receiving-code-review`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/receiving-code-review/SKILL.md)
+  — steelman bot / human review feedback before changing code.
+- [`improve-before-implement`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/rules/improve-before-implement.md)
+  — challenge weak requirements with evidence-grade analysis.
+- [`adversarial-review`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/adversarial-review/SKILL.md)
+  — paired stress-test on a diff after critique.
+
+> **Core principle:** "Steelman first, criticize second." — attacking
+> the strongest version of an argument is the only valid critique.
+
+## Argument Quality Assessment
+
+### Evidence Evaluation Matrix
+
+| Evidence Type | Strength | Red Flags |
+|---|---|---|
+| Peer-reviewed research | High | Sample size, conflicts of interest |
+| Original data | High | Collection methodology, bias |
+| Expert consensus | Medium-High | Field consensus vs. single expert |
+| Case studies | Medium | Selection bias, generalizability |
+| Anecdotes | Low | Not representative |
+| *"Studies show…"* (no citation) | Very Low | Vague, unverifiable |
+
+### Logical Fallacy Checklist
+
+**Causal fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Post hoc (A before B ≠ A caused B).
+- [ ] Correlation ≠ causation.
+- [ ] Oversimplified cause (single factor explains complex
+  phenomenon).
+
+**Evidence fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Cherry-picking (selective evidence).
+- [ ] Survivorship bias (only successful cases visible).
+- [ ] Hasty generalization (small sample → broad claim).
+
+**Rhetorical fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Ad hominem (attack person, not argument).
+- [ ] Appeal to authority (without expertise in relevant field).
+- [ ] Strawman (misrepresenting opponent's position).
+- [ ] Slippery slope (extreme outcome without justification).
+- [ ] False dichotomy (only 2 options when more exist).
+
+**Statistical fallacies:**
+
+- [ ] Base rate neglect (ignoring prior probability).
+- [ ] Absolute vs. relative risk confusion.
+- [ ] Misleading averages (mean hiding distribution).
+
+## Critical Questions Protocol
+
+### Level 1 — Comprehension
+
+- What is the core claim?
+- What evidence supports it?
+- What are the key assumptions?
+
+### Level 2 — Analysis
+
+- Is the evidence sufficient for the claim?
+- Are there logical gaps?
+- What's missing from this argument?
+
+### Level 3 — Evaluation
+
+- How strong is this argument overall?
+- What would strengthen / weaken it?
+- What are alternative explanations?
+
+### Level 4 — Synthesis
+
+- How does this fit with other knowledge?
+- Where might the author be correct despite flaws?
+- What's the charitable interpretation?
+
+## Source Credibility Assessment
+
+**Author background:**
+
+- Relevant expertise in the field?
+- Potential conflicts of interest?
+- Track record of accuracy?
+
+**Publication context:**
+
+- Peer-reviewed? Editorial standards?
+- Primary source or interpretation?
+- Publication date (currency)?
+
+**Motivation analysis:**
+
+- What's the author's goal? (inform / persuade / sell)
+- Who benefits from this claim?
+- What's the intended audience?
+
+## Counter-Evidence Search
+
+When analyzing strong claims, actively look for:
+
+1. Studies with opposite findings.
+2. Expert disagreement.
+3. Failed replications.
+4. Boundary conditions (when doesn't it work?).
+
+## Balanced Evaluation Template
+
+```markdown
+## Argument Strengths
+- [What's well-supported]
+- [Strong evidence points]
+
+## Argument Weaknesses
+- [Logical gaps]
+- [Weak or missing evidence]
+
+## Unanswered Questions
+- [What the argument doesn't address]
+
+## Conditional Truth
+This argument is strongest when: [context]
+This argument is weakest when:   [context]
+```
+
+## Steelmanning Practice
+
+Before criticizing, construct the **strongest possible version** of
+the argument:
+
+1. Fill in logical gaps charitably.
+2. Add best possible supporting evidence.
+3. Address obvious objections.
+4. THEN evaluate this strongest version.
+
+This prevents attacking strawmen and ensures fair evaluation.
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/critical_thinking.md` · MIT License.
+

package/docs/guidelines/agent-infra/first-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,192 @@
+# First-Principles Thinking
+
+Reference guideline for Wing-1 deep-thinking work — strip away
+assumptions and conventions to reach fundamental truths, then rebuild
+understanding from the ground up. Distinct from `inversion-thinking`
+(which negates the goal) — first principles **dissolve** the goal into
+verified primitives and reconstruct it without inherited convention.
+Adopted under the **Reference-Guideline Sunset Policy** and
+cross-referenced from:
+
+- [`deep-reading-analyst`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/skills/deep-reading-analyst/SKILL.md)
+  — L3 Deep analysis depth.
+- [`mental-models`](mental-models.md) — Munger's lattice; first
+  principles is the foundational physics-style lens.
+- [`improve-before-implement`](../../../.agent-src.uncompressed/rules/improve-before-implement.md)
+  — challenge the framing of a request before coding it.
+- [`inversion-thinking`](inversion-thinking.md) — pair: first
+  principles rebuilds; inversion stress-tests the rebuild.
+
+> **Core principle:** "What is definitely, provably true?" — strip
+> the inherited and rebuild from primitives.
+
+## Three-Step Process
+
+### Step 1: Identify assumptions
+
+**Ask:** *"What do we assume to be true about this?"*
+
+List all implicit and explicit assumptions in the content:
+
+- Unstated premises.
+- Inherited wisdom (*"everyone knows…"*).
+- Industry conventions.
+- Historical precedents treated as universal laws.
+
+**Example from business:**
+
+- Assumption: *"We need a physical store to sell products."*
+- Question: is this fundamentally true or historically convenient?
+
+### Step 2: Break down to fundamentals
+
+**Ask:** *"What is definitely, provably true?"*
+
+Reduce to indisputable facts:
+
+- Physical laws (if applicable).
+- Mathematical truths.
+- Core human needs / behaviors.
+- Cause-effect relationships you can verify.
+
+**Sorting Framework:**
+
+```
+Claim → Ask: "How do I know this is true?"
+    ↓
+├─ "It just is"                       → Probably an assumption, dig deeper
+├─ "That's how it's always done"      → Convention, not fundamental
+├─ "X happens, then Y happens"        → Potential fundamental (verify causation)
+└─ "Mathematically/physically must be true" → Fundamental
+```
+
+### Step 3: Rebuild from scratch
+
+**Ask:** *"Starting from fundamentals only, what logically follows?"*
+
+Reconstruct without importing old assumptions:
+
+1. Begin with verified fundamentals.
+2. Each step must logically follow from previous.
+3. Note where you make new assumptions (be explicit).
+4. Compare new construction to original concept.
+
+## Application Template
+
+```markdown
+## Original Concept / Argument
+[What the author claims]
+
+## Hidden Assumptions
+- Assumption 1: [Something taken as given]
+- Assumption 2: [...]
+
+## Verified Fundamentals
+- Fundamental 1: [Provably true core fact]
+- Fundamental 2: [...]
+
+## Rebuilt Understanding
+Starting from fundamentals only:
+Step 1: [First logical derivation]
+Step 2: [Second logical derivation]
+...
+Conclusion: [What actually follows]
+
+## Comparison
+Original vs. rebuilt:
+- What survived: [Fundamentally sound ideas]
+- What doesn't hold: [Based on questionable assumptions]
+- New insights: [What rebuilding revealed]
+```
+
+
+## Common First Principles by Domain
+
+### Business / economics
+
+- People act in self-interest (with caveats).
+- Supply and demand affect price.
+- Value = willingness to pay.
+- Scarcity creates value.
+
+### Psychology / human behavior
+
+- Humans seek pleasure, avoid pain.
+- Social status matters to humans.
+- Cognitive biases exist (not "people are rational").
+- Habits form through repetition.
+
+### Technology
+
+- Information can be copied at near-zero cost.
+- Network effects: value ∝ n² (Metcalfe's law).
+- Moore's law (transistor density doubles ~every 2 years).
+- Computation has energy cost.
+
+### Physics / reality
+
+- Energy is conserved.
+- Entropy increases.
+- Speed of light is constant.
+- Cause precedes effect.
+
+## Red Flags: Pseudo-First-Principles
+
+Watch for claims disguised as fundamentals:
+
+- *"People always prefer X"* (overgeneralization).
+- *"This is just human nature"* (often cultural).
+- *"Economics proves…"* (many schools of economics).
+- *"Science says…"* (which study? replicated?).
+
+**Test:** can you point to specific evidence / mechanism, or is it
+folk wisdom?
+
+## Powerful Questions
+
+- *"Why is this true?"* (repeat 5 times — "5 Whys").
+- *"What must be true for this to work?"*
+- *"If I couldn't do it this way, what's another path?"*
+- *"What would an alien with no context think?"*
+- *"What if the opposite were true?"*
+
+## Worked Example — *"Need for College Education"*
+
+**Assumptions:**
+
+- Need degree to get good job.
+- Learning requires formal institution.
+- 18–22 is the right age.
+- Four years is optimal duration.
+
+**Fundamentals:**
+
+- Employers want skilled workers.
+- Skills can be demonstrated.
+- Learning requires time + practice.
+- Knowledge can be transmitted.
+
+**Rebuilt:**
+
+- → Employers want proof of skill.
+- → Proof can be: degree OR portfolio OR test OR track record.
+- → Therefore, degree is one option, not necessity.
+- → Insight: focus on skill + proof, not credential alone.
+
+## Practical Use in Reading
+
+When analyzing content:
+
+1. **Identify claims** that seem absolute.
+2. **Challenge foundations:** *"Does this HAVE to be true?"*
+3. **Verify causation:** *"Does A truly cause B, or just correlate?"*
+4. **Rebuild the argument** from indisputable facts only.
+5. **Compare** what survives vs. what was assumption.
+
+This exposes weak arguments and strengthens valid ones.
+
+---
+
+## ADOPT citation
+
+Adopted from [`ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill`](https://github.com/ginobefun/deep-reading-analyst-skill) @ commit `26cd7dc9` · `src/deep-reading-analyst/references/first_principles.md` · MIT License.