deepthinking-mcp 5.0.0 → 5.0.1

package/dist/index.js

@@ -840,6 +840,47 @@ var init_recommendations = __esm({
        */
       recommendModes(characteristics) {
         const recommendations = [];
+        const isPhilosophical = characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("metaphysics") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("theology") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("philosophy") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("epistemology") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("ethics");
+        if (characteristics.complexity === "high" && (characteristics.requiresExplanation || characteristics.hasAlternatives || isPhilosophical)) {
+          recommendations.push({
+            mode: "hybrid" /* HYBRID */,
+            score: 0.92,
+            reasoning: "Complex problem benefits from multi-modal synthesis combining inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning",
+            strengths: ["Comprehensive analysis", "Combines empirical and logical approaches", "Maximum evidential strength", "Convergent validation"],
+            limitations: ["Time-intensive", "Requires understanding of multiple reasoning types"],
+            examples: ["Philosophical arguments", "Scientific theories", "Complex decision-making", "Metaphysical questions"]
+          });
+        }
+        if (!characteristics.requiresProof && (characteristics.requiresQuantification || characteristics.hasIncompleteInfo || isPhilosophical)) {
+          recommendations.push({
+            mode: "inductive" /* INDUCTIVE */,
+            score: isPhilosophical ? 0.85 : 0.8,
+            reasoning: "Problem requires pattern recognition and generalization from observations",
+            strengths: ["Empirical grounding", "Pattern detection", "Probabilistic reasoning", "Scientific discovery"],
+            limitations: ["Cannot prove with certainty", "Vulnerable to black swans", "Sample size dependent"],
+            examples: ["Scientific hypotheses", "Trend analysis", "Empirical arguments", "Data-driven insights"]
+          });
+        }
+        if (characteristics.requiresProof || isPhilosophical) {
+          recommendations.push({
+            mode: "deductive" /* DEDUCTIVE */,
+            score: characteristics.requiresProof ? 0.9 : 0.75,
+            reasoning: "Problem requires logical derivation from general principles to specific conclusions",
+            strengths: ["Logical validity", "Rigorous inference", "Exposes contradictions", "Formal reasoning"],
+            limitations: ["Soundness depends on premise truth", "Vulnerable to definitional disputes", "May not handle uncertainty well"],
+            examples: ["Logical proofs", "Mathematical theorems", "Philosophical arguments", "Formal verification"]
+          });
+        }
+        if (characteristics.requiresExplanation || isPhilosophical) {
+          recommendations.push({
+            mode: "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
+            score: isPhilosophical ? 0.9 : 0.87,
+            reasoning: "Problem requires finding best explanations through comparative hypothesis evaluation",
+            strengths: ["Hypothesis generation", "Comparative evaluation", "Explanatory power assessment", "Handles competing theories"],
+            limitations: ["May miss non-obvious explanations", "Explanatory power is subjective"],
+            examples: ["Scientific explanation", "Debugging", "Diagnosis", "Theory selection", "Metaphysical arguments"]
+          });
+        }
         if (characteristics.timeDependent) {
           recommendations.push({
             mode: "temporal" /* TEMPORAL */,
@@ -860,26 +901,16 @@ var init_recommendations = __esm({
             examples: ["Competitive analysis", "Auction design", "Negotiation"]
           });
         }
-        if (characteristics.hasIncompleteInfo && characteristics.uncertainty === "high") {
+        if (characteristics.hasIncompleteInfo && characteristics.uncertainty === "high" && !isPhilosophical) {
           recommendations.push({
             mode: "evidential" /* EVIDENTIAL */,
-            score: 0.88,
-            reasoning: "Problem has incomplete information and high uncertainty",
+            score: 0.82,
+            reasoning: "Problem has incomplete information and high uncertainty requiring Dempster-Shafer belief functions",
             strengths: ["Handles ignorance", "Evidence combination", "Uncertainty intervals"],
-            limitations: ["Computational complexity", "Requires careful mass assignment"],
+            limitations: ["Computational complexity", "Requires careful mass assignment", "Better for sensor fusion than philosophical reasoning"],
             examples: ["Sensor fusion", "Diagnostic reasoning", "Intelligence analysis"]
           });
         }
-        if (characteristics.requiresExplanation) {
-          recommendations.push({
-            mode: "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
-            score: 0.87,
-            reasoning: "Problem requires finding best explanations",
-            strengths: ["Hypothesis generation", "Root cause analysis", "Explanation quality"],
-            limitations: ["May miss non-obvious explanations"],
-            examples: ["Debugging", "Diagnosis", "Scientific discovery"]
-          });
-        }
         if (characteristics.timeDependent && characteristics.requiresExplanation) {
           recommendations.push({
             mode: "causal" /* CAUSAL */,
@@ -967,6 +998,16 @@ var init_recommendations = __esm({
        */
       recommendCombinations(characteristics) {
         const combinations = [];
+        const isPhilosophical = characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("metaphysics") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("theology") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("philosophy") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("epistemology") || characteristics.domain.toLowerCase().includes("ethics");
+        if (isPhilosophical || characteristics.complexity === "high" && characteristics.requiresExplanation && characteristics.hasAlternatives) {
+          combinations.push({
+            modes: ["inductive" /* INDUCTIVE */, "deductive" /* DEDUCTIVE */, "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */],
+            sequence: "hybrid",
+            rationale: "Synthesize empirical patterns, logical derivations, and explanatory hypotheses for maximum evidential strength",
+            benefits: ["Convergent validation from three independent methods", "Empirical grounding + logical rigor + explanatory power", "Highest achievable confidence through multi-modal synthesis", "Exposes both empirical patterns and logical contradictions"],
+            synergies: ["Inductive patterns inform abductive hypotheses", "Deductive logic tests hypothesis validity", "Abductive explanations guide inductive search", "All three methods converge on same conclusion"]
+          });
+        }
         if (characteristics.timeDependent && characteristics.requiresExplanation) {
           combinations.push({
             modes: ["temporal" /* TEMPORAL */, "causal" /* CAUSAL */],
@@ -1012,15 +1053,6 @@ var init_recommendations = __esm({
             synergies: ["Temporal events as game stages", "Strategies evolve over timeline"]
           });
         }
-        if (characteristics.requiresExplanation && characteristics.complexity === "high") {
-          combinations.push({
-            modes: ["analogical" /* ANALOGICAL */, "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */],
-            sequence: "parallel",
-            rationale: "Use analogies to inspire hypotheses while systematically generating explanations",
-            benefits: ["Creative hypothesis generation", "Cross-domain insights"],
-            synergies: ["Analogies suggest hypotheses", "Hypotheses validated by analogical reasoning"]
-          });
-        }
         if (characteristics.requiresProof && characteristics.complexity === "high") {
           combinations.push({
             modes: ["shannon" /* SHANNON */, "mathematics" /* MATHEMATICS */],
@@ -1038,8 +1070,23 @@ var init_recommendations = __esm({
        */
       quickRecommend(problemType) {
         const typeMap = {
+          // Core reasoning modes
+          "explanation": "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
+          "hypothesis": "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
+          "inference": "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
+          "pattern": "inductive" /* INDUCTIVE */,
+          "generalization": "inductive" /* INDUCTIVE */,
+          "empirical": "inductive" /* INDUCTIVE */,
+          "logic": "deductive" /* DEDUCTIVE */,
+          "proof": "deductive" /* DEDUCTIVE */,
+          "derivation": "deductive" /* DEDUCTIVE */,
+          "complex": "hybrid" /* HYBRID */,
+          "synthesis": "hybrid" /* HYBRID */,
+          "philosophical": "hybrid" /* HYBRID */,
+          "metaphysical": "hybrid" /* HYBRID */,
+          // Specialized modes
           "debugging": "abductive" /* ABDUCTIVE */,
-          "proof": "mathematics" /* MATHEMATICS */,
+          "mathematical": "mathematics" /* MATHEMATICS */,
           "timeline": "temporal" /* TEMPORAL */,
           "strategy": "gametheory" /* GAMETHEORY */,
           "uncertainty": "evidential" /* EVIDENTIAL */,