@rune-kit/rune 2.10.0 → 2.11.0

package/skills/problem-solver/SKILL.md

@@ -1,284 +1,380 @@
----
-name: problem-solver
-description: "Structured reasoning frameworks for complex problems. 14 analytical frameworks, 12 cognitive bias detectors, 10 decomposition methods, 8 mental models, and 6 communication patterns. McKinsey-grade problem solving for AI coding assistants."
-metadata:
-  author: runedev
-  version: "0.3.0"
-  layer: L3
-  model: sonnet
-  group: reasoning
-  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep"
----
-
-# problem-solver
-
-## Purpose
-
-Structured reasoning utility for problems that resist straightforward analysis. Receives a problem statement, detects cognitive biases, selects the appropriate analytical framework, applies it step-by-step with evidence, and returns ranked solutions with a communication structure. Stateless — no memory between calls.
-
-Inspired by McKinsey problem-solving methodology and cognitive science research on decision-making errors.
-
-## Calls (outbound)
-
-None — pure L3 reasoning utility.
-
-## Called By (inbound)
-
-- `debug` (L2): complex bugs that resist standard debugging
-- `brainstorm` (L2): structured frameworks for creative exploration
-- `plan` (L2): complex architecture decisions with many trade-offs
-- `ba` (L2): requirement analysis when scope is ambiguous
-
-## Execution
-
-### Input
-
-```
-problem: string         — clear statement of the problem to analyze
-context: string         — (optional) relevant background, constraints, symptoms observed
-goal: string            — (optional) desired outcome or success criteria
-mode: string            — (optional) "analyze" | "decide" | "decompose" | "communicate"
-```
-
-### Step 1 — Receive and Classify
-
-Read the `problem` and `context` inputs. Restate the problem in one sentence to confirm understanding.
-
-Classify the problem type:
-
-| Type | Signal Words | Primary Approach |
-|------|-------------|-----------------|
-| Root cause / diagnostic | "why", "broken", "failing", "declining" | 5 Whys, Fishbone, Root Cause |
-| Decision / choice | "should I", "choose", "compare", "vs" | Decision Frameworks (Step 3b) |
-| Decomposition | "break down", "understand", "structure" | Decomposition Methods (Step 3c) |
-| Creative / stuck | "stuck", "no ideas", "exhausted options" | SCAMPER, Collision-Zone, Inversion |
-| Architecture / scale | "design", "architecture", "will it scale" | First Principles, Scale Game |
-
-### Step 2 — Bias Check (ALWAYS RUN)
-
-<HARD-GATE>
-NEVER skip bias detection. Every problem has biases — explicitly address them.
-This is the #1 value-add from structured reasoning. Without it, solutions are just dressed-up gut feelings.
-</HARD-GATE>
-
-Scan the problem statement and context for bias indicators. Check the top 6 most dangerous biases:
-
-| Bias | Detection Question | Debiasing Strategy |
-|------|-------------------|-------------------|
-| **Confirmation Bias** | Have we actively sought evidence AGAINST our preferred option? Are we explaining away contradictory data? | Assign devil's advocate. Explicitly seek disconfirming evidence. Require equal analysis of all options. |
-| **Anchoring Effect** | Would our evaluation change if we saw options in a different order? Is the first number/proposal dominating? | Generate evaluation criteria BEFORE seeing options. Score independently before group discussion. |
-| **Sunk Cost Fallacy** | If we were starting fresh today with zero prior investment, would we still choose this? Are we justifying by pointing to past spend? | Evaluate each option as if starting fresh (zero-based). Separate past investment from forward-looking decision. |
-| **Status Quo Bias** | Are we holding the current state to the SAME standard as alternatives? Would we actively choose the status quo if starting from scratch? | Explicitly include status quo as an option evaluated with same rigor. Calculate the cost of inaction. |
-| **Overconfidence** | What is our confidence level, and what is it based on? Have we been right about similar predictions before? | Use pre-mortem to stress-test. Track calibration. Seek outside perspectives. |
-| **Planning Fallacy** | Are our estimates based on best-case assumptions? Have similar projects in the past taken longer or cost more? | Use reference class forecasting — compare to actual outcomes of similar past efforts rather than bottom-up estimates. |
-
-Additional biases to check when relevant:
-- **Framing Effect**: Would our preference change if framed as a gain vs. a loss?
-- **Availability Heuristic**: Are we basing estimates on vivid anecdotes rather than systematic data?
-- **Groupthink**: Has anyone expressed strong disagreement? Are we reaching consensus suspiciously fast?
-- **Loss Aversion**: Are we avoiding an option primarily because of what we might lose, rather than evaluating the full picture?
-- **Survivorship Bias**: Are we only looking at successful cases? Who tried this approach and failed?
-- **Recency Bias**: Are we extrapolating from the last few data points instead of looking at 5-10 years of data?
-
-**Output**: List 2-3 biases most likely to affect THIS specific problem, with their debiasing strategy. Weave these warnings into the analysis.
-
-### Step 3a — Select Analytical Framework
-
-Choose the framework based on what is unknown about the problem:
-
-| Situation | Framework |
-|-----------|-----------|
-| Root cause unknown — symptoms clear | **5 Whys** |
-| Multiple potential causes from different domains | **Fishbone (Ishikawa)** |
-| Standard assumptions need challenging | **First Principles** |
-| Creative options needed for known problem | **SCAMPER** |
-| Must prioritize among known solutions | **Impact Matrix** |
-| Conventional approaches exhausted, need breakthrough | **Collision-Zone Thinking** |
-| Feeling forced into "the only way" | **Inversion Exercise** |
-| Same pattern appearing in 3+ places | **Meta-Pattern Recognition** |
-| Complexity spiraling, growing special cases | **Simplification Cascades** |
-| Unsure if approach survives production scale | **Scale Game** |
-| High-stakes irreversible decision — need to find blind spots | **Pre-Mortem** |
-| Need to determine how much analysis effort is warranted | **Reversibility Filter** |
-| Quantifiable outcomes with estimable probabilities | **Expected Value Calculation** |
-| Key assumptions uncertain, need to know what flips the decision | **Sensitivity Analysis** |
-
-State which framework was selected and why.
-
-### Step 3b — Decision Frameworks (when mode = "decide")
-
-When the problem is a decision/choice, use these specialized frameworks:
-
-**Reversibility Filter** (always apply first):
-- Is this a one-way door (irreversible) or two-way door (reversible)?
-- Two-way door → decide quickly, set review date, iterate
-- One-way door → invest in thorough analysis, use other frameworks
-- Proportional effort: analysis depth should match reversibility
-
-**Weighted Criteria Matrix** (multi-option comparison):
-1. List all options
-2. Define 3-5 evaluation criteria (max 5 — more causes choice overload)
-3. Assign weights (must sum to 100)
-4. Score each option 1-5 on each criterion
-5. Calculate weighted scores
-6. Run sensitivity: which weight changes would flip the decision?
-
-**Pros-Cons-Fixes** (binary or few-option, quick):
-1. List pros and cons for each option
-2. For each con: can it be fixed, mitigated, or is it permanent?
-3. Re-evaluate with fixable cons addressed
-4. Decide based on remaining permanent trade-offs
-
-**Pre-Mortem** (high-stakes, irreversible):
-1. Assume the decision has already failed catastrophically (12 months later)
-2. List what went wrong (work backward)
-3. Categorize by likelihood and severity
-4. Develop mitigation plans for high-risk failures
-
-**Expected Value** (quantifiable outcomes):
-1. List possible outcomes for each option
-2. Estimate probability of each
-3. Estimate value (monetary or utility) of each
-4. Calculate EV = Σ(probability × value)
-5. Choose highest EV adjusted for risk tolerance
-
-### Step 3c — Decomposition Methods (when mode = "decompose")
-
-When the problem needs structuring before analysis:
-
-| Method | When to Use | Pattern |
-|--------|------------|---------|
-| **Issue Tree** | Don't have a hypothesis yet, exploring | Root Question → Sub-questions (why/what) → deeper |
-| **Hypothesis Tree** | Have domain expertise, need speed | Hypothesis → Conditions that must be true → Evidence needed |
-| **Profitability Tree** | Business performance problem | Profit → Revenue (Price × Volume) → Costs (Fixed + Variable) |
-| **Process Flow** | Operational/efficiency problem | Step 1 → Step 2 → ... → find bottleneck |
-| **Systems Map** | Complex with feedback loops | Variables → causal links (+/-) → reinforcing/balancing loops |
-| **Customer Journey** | User/customer problem | Awareness → Consideration → Purchase → Experience → Retention |
-
-All decompositions MUST pass the MECE test:
-- **ME** (Mutually Exclusive): branches don't overlap
-- **CE** (Collectively Exhaustive): branches cover all possibilities
-
-### Step 4 — Apply Framework
-
-Execute the selected framework with discipline. For each framework, follow the steps defined in Step 3a/3b/3c.
-
-At each step, apply the bias debiasing strategies identified in Step 2.
-
-### Step 5 — Apply Mental Models
-
-Cross-check the framework output against relevant mental models:
-
-| Model | Core Question | When It Helps |
-|-------|--------------|---------------|
-| **Second-Order Thinking** | "And then what?" — consequences of consequences | Decisions with delayed effects |
-| **Bayesian Updating** | How should we update our beliefs given this new evidence? | When new data arrives during analysis |
-| **Margin of Safety** | What buffer do we need for things going wrong? | Planning timelines, budgets, capacity |
-| **Opportunity Cost** | What's the best alternative we're giving up? | Resource allocation, project prioritization |
-| **Occam's Razor** | Among competing explanations, prefer the simplest | Multiple possible root causes |
-| **Leverage Points** | Where does small effort produce large effect? | System redesign, process improvement |
-| **Hanlon's Razor** | Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or misaligned incentives | Organizational problems, team conflicts |
-| **Regression to the Mean** | Is this extreme result likely to revert to average? | After exceptional performance (good or bad) |
-
-Apply 1-2 most relevant models. State which and why.
-
-### Step 6 — Generate Solutions
-
-From the framework output, derive 2-3 actionable solutions. For each:
-- Describe what to do concretely
-- Estimate impact: high / medium / low
-- Estimate effort: high / medium / low
-- State any preconditions or risks
-- Note which biases might affect evaluation of this solution
-
-Rank solutions by impact/effort ratio.
-
-### Step 7 — Select Communication Structure
-
-Choose how to present the analysis based on audience:
-
-| Audience | Pattern | Format |
-|----------|---------|--------|
-| Executive / senior | **Pyramid Principle** | Lead with recommendation → support with 3 arguments → evidence |
-| Mixed / unfamiliar | **SCR** | Situation (context) → Complication (tension) → Resolution (recommendation) |
-| Technical / peers | **Day-1 Answer** | State best hypothesis → list evidence for/against → confidence level |
-| Quick update | **BLUF** | Bottom Line Up Front → background → details → action required |
-
-Structure the output report using the selected pattern.
-
-## Constraints
-
-- MUST run bias check (Step 2) for EVERY problem — the bias layer IS the differentiator
-- Never skip the framework — the structure is the value
-- Use Sonnet, not Haiku — reasoning depth matters
-- If problem is underspecified, state assumptions explicitly before proceeding
-- Do not produce more than 3 recommended solutions — prioritize quality over quantity
-- Max 5 evaluation criteria in Weighted Matrix — more causes choice overload
-- Decompositions MUST pass MECE test — no overlapping or missing branches
-
-## Output Format
-
-```
-## Analysis: [Problem Statement]
-- **Type**: [root cause / decision / decomposition / creative / architecture]
-- **Framework**: [chosen framework and reason]
-- **Confidence**: high | medium | low
-
-### Bias Warnings
-- ⚠️ [Bias 1]: [how it might affect this analysis] → [debiasing action taken]
-- ⚠️ [Bias 2]: [how it might affect this analysis] → [debiasing action taken]
-
-### Reasoning Chain
-1. [step with evidence or reasoning]
-2. [step with evidence or reasoning]
-3. [step with evidence or reasoning]
-...
-
-### Mental Model Cross-Check
-- [Model applied]: [insight gained]
-
-### Root Cause / Core Finding
-[what the framework reveals as the fundamental issue or conclusion]
-
-### Recommended Solutions (ranked)
-1. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
-   [concrete description of what to do]
-   ⚠️ Bias risk: [which bias might make us over/under-value this]
-2. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
-   [concrete description of what to do]
-3. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
-   [concrete description of what to do]
-
-### Next Action
-[single most important immediate step]
-```
-
-## Sharp Edges
-
-| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
-|---|---|---|
-| Skipping bias check and jumping to framework | CRITICAL | HARD-GATE: Step 2 is mandatory — biases ARE the value-add |
-| Skipping the framework and jumping to solutions | CRITICAL | Solutions without structured analysis are guesses |
-| Proceeding with underspecified problem | HIGH | Step 1: restate in one sentence — if ambiguous, state interpretation |
-| Producing more than 3 solutions | MEDIUM | Max 3 ranked — prioritize quality over quantity |
-| Framework mismatch (5 Whys for a creative problem) | MEDIUM | Use selection table — match framework to "what is unknown" |
-| Weighted Matrix with > 5 criteria | MEDIUM | Choice overload — max 5 criteria, focus on what matters |
-| Pre-Mortem without debiasing strategies | MEDIUM | Pre-Mortem reveals risks — MUST include mitigation plans |
-| Decomposition failing MECE test | HIGH | Every branch must be ME (no overlap) and CE (no gaps) |
-| Ignoring second-order effects in recommendations | MEDIUM | Apply Second-Order Thinking: "and then what?" |
-| Presenting analysis without communication structure | LOW | Step 7: match output pattern to audience |
-
-## Done When
-
-- Problem restated in one sentence (understanding confirmed)
-- Bias check completed — 2-3 biases identified with debiasing strategies
-- Framework selected with explicit reason stated
-- Framework applied step-by-step with evidence at each step
-- Mental models cross-checked (1-2 relevant models applied)
-- 2-3 solutions ranked by impact/effort ratio with bias risk noted
-- Next Action identified (single most important immediate step)
-- Analysis Report emitted with communication structure
-
-## Cost Profile
-
-~500-1500 tokens input, ~800-1500 tokens output. Sonnet for reasoning quality. Opus recommended for high-stakes irreversible decisions.
+---
+name: problem-solver
+description: "Structured reasoning frameworks for complex problems. 19 analytical frameworks, 12 cognitive bias detectors, 10 decomposition methods, 10 mental models, Cynefin domain classification, ethical dimension check, and 6 communication patterns. McKinsey-grade problem solving for AI coding assistants."
+metadata:
+  author: runedev
+  version: "0.4.0"
+  layer: L3
+  model: sonnet
+  group: reasoning
+  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep"
+---
+
+# problem-solver
+
+## Purpose
+
+Structured reasoning utility for problems that resist straightforward analysis. Receives a problem statement, detects cognitive biases, selects the appropriate analytical framework, applies it step-by-step with evidence, and returns ranked solutions with a communication structure. Stateless — no memory between calls.
+
+Inspired by McKinsey problem-solving methodology and cognitive science research on decision-making errors.
+
+## Calls (outbound)
+
+None — pure L3 reasoning utility.
+
+## Called By (inbound)
+
+- `debug` (L2): complex bugs that resist standard debugging
+- `brainstorm` (L2): structured frameworks for creative exploration
+- `plan` (L2): complex architecture decisions with many trade-offs
+- `ba` (L2): requirement analysis when scope is ambiguous
+
+## Execution
+
+### Input
+
+```
+problem: string         — clear statement of the problem to analyze
+context: string         — (optional) relevant background, constraints, symptoms observed
+goal: string            — (optional) desired outcome or success criteria
+mode: string            — (optional) "analyze" | "decide" | "decompose" | "communicate"
+```
+
+### Step 1 — Receive and Classify
+
+Read the `problem` and `context` inputs. Restate the problem in one sentence to confirm understanding.
+
+Classify the problem type:
+
+| Type | Signal Words | Primary Approach |
+|------|-------------|-----------------|
+| Root cause / diagnostic | "why", "broken", "failing", "declining" | 5 Whys, Fishbone, Root Cause |
+| Decision / choice | "should I", "choose", "compare", "vs" | Decision Frameworks (Step 3b) |
+| Decomposition | "break down", "understand", "structure" | Decomposition Methods (Step 3c) |
+| Creative / stuck | "stuck", "no ideas", "exhausted options" | SCAMPER, Collision-Zone, Inversion |
+| Architecture / scale | "design", "architecture", "will it scale" | First Principles, Scale Game |
+
+### Step 1.5 — Domain Classification (Cynefin)
+
+Before selecting a framework, classify the problem's complexity domain. This determines HOW MUCH analysis is warranted and WHICH class of frameworks applies.
+
+| Domain | Signal | Framework Class | Analysis Depth |
+|--------|--------|----------------|----------------|
+| **Clear** (obvious) | Best practice exists, cause-effect obvious, "just do X" | Direct action — no framework needed | Minimal — act immediately |
+| **Complicated** (expert analysis) | Cause-effect discoverable through analysis, multiple right answers exist | Analytical frameworks (5 Whys, Fishbone, SWOT, Weighted Matrix) | Moderate — structured analysis |
+| **Complex** (emergent) | Cause-effect only visible in retrospect, no right answer — only better probes | Probe-sense-respond (Pre-Mortem, Systems Map, Sensitivity Analysis, PESTLE) | Deep — experiment and iterate |
+| **Chaotic** (crisis) | No cause-effect, need to stabilize first | Act-sense-respond — triage, then analyze | Immediate — stabilize before analyzing |
+| **Confused** (don't know which domain) | Can't classify → decompose until sub-problems land in a known domain | Decomposition first (Issue Tree, MECE) → re-classify each branch | Meta — decompose then classify |
+
+**Output**: State the domain and justify in one sentence. If Confused, decompose before proceeding.
+
+**Why this matters**: Applying Complicated-domain tools (deep analysis) to a Clear problem wastes effort. Applying Clear-domain tools ("just do X") to a Complex problem creates false confidence. Match the tool to the terrain.
+
+### Step 2 — Bias Check (ALWAYS RUN)
+
+<HARD-GATE>
+NEVER skip bias detection. Every problem has biases — explicitly address them.
+This is the #1 value-add from structured reasoning. Without it, solutions are just dressed-up gut feelings.
+</HARD-GATE>
+
+Scan the problem statement and context for bias indicators. Check the top 6 most dangerous biases:
+
+| Bias | Detection Question | Debiasing Strategy |
+|------|-------------------|-------------------|
+| **Confirmation Bias** | Have we actively sought evidence AGAINST our preferred option? Are we explaining away contradictory data? | Assign devil's advocate. Explicitly seek disconfirming evidence. Require equal analysis of all options. |
+| **Anchoring Effect** | Would our evaluation change if we saw options in a different order? Is the first number/proposal dominating? | Generate evaluation criteria BEFORE seeing options. Score independently before group discussion. |
+| **Sunk Cost Fallacy** | If we were starting fresh today with zero prior investment, would we still choose this? Are we justifying by pointing to past spend? | Evaluate each option as if starting fresh (zero-based). Separate past investment from forward-looking decision. |
+| **Status Quo Bias** | Are we holding the current state to the SAME standard as alternatives? Would we actively choose the status quo if starting from scratch? | Explicitly include status quo as an option evaluated with same rigor. Calculate the cost of inaction. |
+| **Overconfidence** | What is our confidence level, and what is it based on? Have we been right about similar predictions before? | Use pre-mortem to stress-test. Track calibration. Seek outside perspectives. |
+| **Planning Fallacy** | Are our estimates based on best-case assumptions? Have similar projects in the past taken longer or cost more? | Use reference class forecasting — compare to actual outcomes of similar past efforts rather than bottom-up estimates. |
+
+Additional biases to check when relevant:
+- **Framing Effect**: Would our preference change if framed as a gain vs. a loss?
+- **Availability Heuristic**: Are we basing estimates on vivid anecdotes rather than systematic data?
+- **Groupthink**: Has anyone expressed strong disagreement? Are we reaching consensus suspiciously fast?
+- **Loss Aversion**: Are we avoiding an option primarily because of what we might lose, rather than evaluating the full picture?
+- **Survivorship Bias**: Are we only looking at successful cases? Who tried this approach and failed?
+- **Recency Bias**: Are we extrapolating from the last few data points instead of looking at 5-10 years of data?
+
+**Steel Manning** (apply when evaluating competing options):
+Before dismissing any option, construct the STRONGEST possible version of the argument for it. If you can't articulate why a smart, informed person would choose it, you haven't understood it yet. Steel Manning prevents strawman dismissals and forces genuine evaluation.
+
+**Output**: List 2-3 biases most likely to affect THIS specific problem, with their debiasing strategy. If comparing options, include a steel-manned case for the option you're least inclined toward. Weave these warnings into the analysis.
+
+### Step 3a — Select Analytical Framework
+
+Choose the framework based on what is unknown about the problem:
+
+| Situation | Framework |
+|-----------|-----------|
+| Root cause unknown — symptoms clear | **5 Whys** |
+| Multiple potential causes from different domains | **Fishbone (Ishikawa)** |
+| Standard assumptions need challenging | **First Principles** |
+| Creative options needed for known problem | **SCAMPER** |
+| Must prioritize among known solutions | **Impact Matrix** |
+| Conventional approaches exhausted, need breakthrough | **Collision-Zone Thinking** |
+| Feeling forced into "the only way" | **Inversion Exercise** |
+| Same pattern appearing in 3+ places | **Meta-Pattern Recognition** |
+| Complexity spiraling, growing special cases | **Simplification Cascades** |
+| Unsure if approach survives production scale | **Scale Game** |
+| High-stakes irreversible decision — need to find blind spots | **Pre-Mortem** |
+| Need to determine how much analysis effort is warranted | **Reversibility Filter** |
+| Quantifiable outcomes with estimable probabilities | **Expected Value Calculation** |
+| Key assumptions uncertain, need to know what flips the decision | **Sensitivity Analysis** |
+| Need holistic internal + external assessment of a project/product/strategy | **SWOT Analysis** |
+| Decision depends on macro-environment factors beyond your control | **PESTLE Analysis** |
+| Competitive landscape unclear, need to assess market position | **Porter's Five Forces** |
+| Need a rough estimate with very little data | **Fermi Estimation** |
+| Problem involves ethical trade-offs or stakeholder harm | **Ethical Reasoning** (→ Step 5.5) |
+
+State which framework was selected and why.
+
+**SWOT Analysis** (holistic assessment):
+1. **Strengths**: Internal advantages — what do we do well? What assets do we have?
+2. **Weaknesses**: Internal disadvantages — where are we vulnerable? What do we lack?
+3. **Opportunities**: External factors we could exploit — trends, market gaps, timing
+4. **Threats**: External factors that could harm us — competitors, regulation, tech shifts
+5. Cross-reference: How can Strengths exploit Opportunities? How do Weaknesses amplify Threats?
+6. Prioritize: Which quadrant demands immediate action?
+
+**PESTLE Analysis** (macro-environment scan):
+When the problem is influenced by forces beyond the project/org:
+
+| Factor | Key Questions |
+|--------|-------------|
+| **Political** | Government policy, regulation changes, political stability, trade restrictions? |
+| **Economic** | Market conditions, inflation, exchange rates, funding climate, customer spending? |
+| **Social** | Demographics, cultural trends, user behavior shifts, workforce expectations? |
+| **Technological** | New tech, disruption risk, automation, platform shifts, AI impact? |
+| **Legal** | Compliance requirements, IP, data privacy (GDPR/CCPA), licensing, liability? |
+| **Environmental** | Sustainability expectations, carbon footprint, resource scarcity, ESG pressure? |
+
+For each factor: rate impact (high/medium/low) and timeline (imminent/near-term/long-term). Focus analysis on high-impact factors only.
+
+**Porter's Five Forces** (competitive position):
+1. **Threat of New Entrants**: How easy is it for competitors to enter? (barriers: capital, tech, brand, network effects)
+2. **Bargaining Power of Suppliers**: How much leverage do your dependencies have? (few suppliers = high power)
+3. **Bargaining Power of Buyers**: Can customers easily switch? (low switching cost = high power)
+4. **Threat of Substitutes**: What alternatives exist outside your direct market?
+5. **Competitive Rivalry**: How intense is competition? (many similar players = high rivalry)
+Rate each force: strong / moderate / weak. Strongest forces dictate strategy.
+
+**Fermi Estimation** (order-of-magnitude reasoning):
+When data is scarce but a rough estimate is needed:
+1. Break the unknown into estimable sub-components
+2. Estimate each component using common knowledge or reference classes
+3. Multiply/combine to get the overall estimate
+4. Sanity-check: does the result pass the smell test? Off by 10x?
+5. State confidence range: "between X and Y, best estimate Z"
+Goal: be within an order of magnitude (10x), not precise. Useful for sizing markets, estimating effort, or validating claims.
+
+### Step 3b — Decision Frameworks (when mode = "decide")
+
+When the problem is a decision/choice, use these specialized frameworks:
+
+**Reversibility Filter** (always apply first):
+- Is this a one-way door (irreversible) or two-way door (reversible)?
+- Two-way door → decide quickly, set review date, iterate
+- One-way door → invest in thorough analysis, use other frameworks
+- Proportional effort: analysis depth should match reversibility
+
+**Weighted Criteria Matrix** (multi-option comparison):
+1. List all options
+2. Define 3-5 evaluation criteria (max 5 — more causes choice overload)
+3. Assign weights (must sum to 100)
+4. Score each option 1-5 on each criterion
+5. Calculate weighted scores
+6. Run sensitivity: which weight changes would flip the decision?
+
+**Pros-Cons-Fixes** (binary or few-option, quick):
+1. List pros and cons for each option
+2. For each con: can it be fixed, mitigated, or is it permanent?
+3. Re-evaluate with fixable cons addressed
+4. Decide based on remaining permanent trade-offs
+
+**Pre-Mortem** (high-stakes, irreversible):
+1. Assume the decision has already failed catastrophically (12 months later)
+2. List what went wrong (work backward)
+3. Categorize by likelihood and severity
+4. Develop mitigation plans for high-risk failures
+
+**Expected Value** (quantifiable outcomes):
+1. List possible outcomes for each option
+2. Estimate probability of each
+3. Estimate value (monetary or utility) of each
+4. Calculate EV = Σ(probability × value)
+5. Choose highest EV adjusted for risk tolerance
+
+**Regret Minimization** (life-scale or career-scale decisions):
+1. Project yourself to age 80 (or 10 years from now)
+2. Ask: "Will I regret NOT trying this?" — regret of inaction vs. regret of action
+3. Regret of inaction (missed opportunity) typically outweighs regret of action (failed attempt)
+4. Use when: the decision is personally significant, emotionally charged, or involves a window of opportunity that won't return
+5. Not suitable for: purely analytical/technical decisions — use Expected Value instead
+
+### Step 3c — Decomposition Methods (when mode = "decompose")
+
+When the problem needs structuring before analysis:
+
+| Method | When to Use | Pattern |
+|--------|------------|---------|
+| **Issue Tree** | Don't have a hypothesis yet, exploring | Root Question → Sub-questions (why/what) → deeper |
+| **Hypothesis Tree** | Have domain expertise, need speed | Hypothesis → Conditions that must be true → Evidence needed |
+| **Profitability Tree** | Business performance problem | Profit → Revenue (Price × Volume) → Costs (Fixed + Variable) |
+| **Process Flow** | Operational/efficiency problem | Step 1 → Step 2 → ... → find bottleneck |
+| **Systems Map** | Complex with feedback loops | Variables → causal links (+/-) → reinforcing/balancing loops |
+| **Customer Journey** | User/customer problem | Awareness → Consideration → Purchase → Experience → Retention |
+
+All decompositions MUST pass the MECE test:
+- **ME** (Mutually Exclusive): branches don't overlap
+- **CE** (Collectively Exhaustive): branches cover all possibilities
+
+### Step 4 — Apply Framework
+
+Execute the selected framework with discipline. For each framework, follow the steps defined in Step 3a/3b/3c.
+
+At each step, apply the bias debiasing strategies identified in Step 2.
+
+### Step 5 — Apply Mental Models
+
+Cross-check the framework output against relevant mental models:
+
+| Model | Core Question | When It Helps |
+|-------|--------------|---------------|
+| **Second-Order Thinking** | "And then what?" — consequences of consequences | Decisions with delayed effects |
+| **Bayesian Updating** | How should we update our beliefs given this new evidence? | When new data arrives during analysis |
+| **Margin of Safety** | What buffer do we need for things going wrong? | Planning timelines, budgets, capacity |
+| **Opportunity Cost** | What's the best alternative we're giving up? | Resource allocation, project prioritization |
+| **Occam's Razor** | Among competing explanations, prefer the simplest | Multiple possible root causes |
+| **Leverage Points** | Where does small effort produce large effect? | System redesign, process improvement |
+| **Hanlon's Razor** | Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence or misaligned incentives | Organizational problems, team conflicts |
+| **Regression to the Mean** | Is this extreme result likely to revert to average? | After exceptional performance (good or bad) |
+| **Dialectical Thinking** | Thesis + Antithesis → can we synthesize a higher-order solution? | Two opposing valid positions, binary choice feels forced |
+| **Fermi Estimation** | Can we get a rough order-of-magnitude estimate to sanity-check? | Claims, estimates, or projections that feel off |
+
+Apply 1-2 most relevant models. State which and why.
+
+### Step 5.5 — Ethical Dimension Check (when applicable)
+
+Run this check when the problem involves: user data, automation replacing human judgment, resource allocation affecting people, public-facing decisions, or stakeholder trade-offs.
+
+| Lens | Core Question |
+|------|--------------|
+| **Harm** | Who could be harmed by each option? How severe? How reversible? |
+| **Fairness** | Does this option disadvantage any group disproportionately? |
+| **Transparency** | Would we be comfortable if our reasoning was public? |
+| **Autonomy** | Does this preserve user choice, or does it decide for them? |
+| **Long-term trust** | Will this erode trust with users/team/community over time? |
+
+This is NOT a gate — it produces warnings, not blocks. If an ethical concern is identified, note it alongside the solution in Step 6 so the decision-maker can weigh it.
+
+Skip this step for purely technical problems with no stakeholder impact (e.g., "which sorting algorithm").
+
+### Step 6 — Generate Solutions
+
+From the framework output, derive 2-3 actionable solutions. For each:
+- Describe what to do concretely
+- Estimate impact: high / medium / low
+- Estimate effort: high / medium / low
+- State any preconditions or risks
+- Note which biases might affect evaluation of this solution
+
+Rank solutions by impact/effort ratio.
+
+### Step 7 — Select Communication Structure
+
+Choose how to present the analysis based on audience:
+
+| Audience | Pattern | Format |
+|----------|---------|--------|
+| Executive / senior | **Pyramid Principle** | Lead with recommendation → support with 3 arguments → evidence |
+| Mixed / unfamiliar | **SCR** | Situation (context) → Complication (tension) → Resolution (recommendation) |
+| Technical / peers | **Day-1 Answer** | State best hypothesis → list evidence for/against → confidence level |
+| Quick update | **BLUF** | Bottom Line Up Front → background → details → action required |
+
+Structure the output report using the selected pattern.
+
+## Constraints
+
+- MUST run domain classification (Step 1.5) — match analysis depth to problem complexity
+- MUST run bias check (Step 2) for EVERY problem — the bias layer IS the differentiator
+- MUST steel-man the least-favored option when comparing alternatives
+- Never skip the framework — the structure is the value
+- Use Sonnet, not Haiku — reasoning depth matters
+- If problem is underspecified, state assumptions explicitly before proceeding
+- Do not produce more than 3 recommended solutions — prioritize quality over quantity
+- Max 5 evaluation criteria in Weighted Matrix — more causes choice overload
+- Decompositions MUST pass MECE test — no overlapping or missing branches
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Analysis: [Problem Statement]
+- **Type**: [root cause / decision / decomposition / creative / architecture]
+- **Domain**: [Clear / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic / Confused] — [one-line justification]
+- **Framework**: [chosen framework and reason]
+- **Confidence**: high | medium | low
+
+### Bias Warnings
+- ⚠️ [Bias 1]: [how it might affect this analysis] → [debiasing action taken]
+- ⚠️ [Bias 2]: [how it might affect this analysis] → [debiasing action taken]
+
+### Reasoning Chain
+1. [step with evidence or reasoning]
+2. [step with evidence or reasoning]
+3. [step with evidence or reasoning]
+...
+
+### Mental Model Cross-Check
+- [Model applied]: [insight gained]
+
+### Root Cause / Core Finding
+[what the framework reveals as the fundamental issue or conclusion]
+
+### Recommended Solutions (ranked)
+1. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
+   [concrete description of what to do]
+   ⚠️ Bias risk: [which bias might make us over/under-value this]
+2. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
+   [concrete description of what to do]
+3. **[Solution Name]** — Impact: high/medium/low | Effort: high/medium/low
+   [concrete description of what to do]
+
+### Next Action
+[single most important immediate step]
+```
+
+## Sharp Edges
+
+| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
+|---|---|---|
+| Skipping bias check and jumping to framework | CRITICAL | HARD-GATE: Step 2 is mandatory — biases ARE the value-add |
+| Skipping the framework and jumping to solutions | CRITICAL | Solutions without structured analysis are guesses |
+| Proceeding with underspecified problem | HIGH | Step 1: restate in one sentence — if ambiguous, state interpretation |
+| Producing more than 3 solutions | MEDIUM | Max 3 ranked — prioritize quality over quantity |
+| Framework mismatch (5 Whys for a creative problem) | MEDIUM | Use selection table — match framework to "what is unknown" |
+| Weighted Matrix with > 5 criteria | MEDIUM | Choice overload — max 5 criteria, focus on what matters |
+| Pre-Mortem without debiasing strategies | MEDIUM | Pre-Mortem reveals risks — MUST include mitigation plans |
+| Decomposition failing MECE test | HIGH | Every branch must be ME (no overlap) and CE (no gaps) |
+| Ignoring second-order effects in recommendations | MEDIUM | Apply Second-Order Thinking: "and then what?" |
+| Presenting analysis without communication structure | LOW | Step 7: match output pattern to audience |
+| Using Complicated-domain tools on a Complex problem | HIGH | Step 1.5 Cynefin: Complex → probe-sense-respond, not analyze-plan-execute |
+| Strawmanning the least-favored option | MEDIUM | Steel Manning: build strongest case for option you dislike before dismissing |
+| Running full PESTLE on a purely technical problem | LOW | PESTLE is for macro-environment — skip for algorithm/implementation choices |
+| Skipping ethics check on user-facing decisions | MEDIUM | Step 5.5: lightweight check — warnings not gates, but don't skip for stakeholder-affecting decisions |
+
+## Done When
+
+- Problem restated in one sentence (understanding confirmed)
+- Domain classified (Cynefin: Clear / Complicated / Complex / Chaotic / Confused)
+- Bias check completed — 2-3 biases identified with debiasing strategies
+- Framework selected with explicit reason stated
+- Framework applied step-by-step with evidence at each step
+- Mental models cross-checked (1-2 relevant models applied)
+- 2-3 solutions ranked by impact/effort ratio with bias risk noted
+- Next Action identified (single most important immediate step)
+- Analysis Report emitted with communication structure
+
+## Cost Profile
+
+~500-1500 tokens input, ~800-1500 tokens output. Sonnet for reasoning quality. Opus recommended for high-stakes irreversible decisions.