Skill: ivangdavila/first-principles-thinking (version 1.0.0)

--- name: First Principles Thinking slug: first-principles-thinking version: 1.0.0 homepage: https://clawic.com/skills/first-principles-thinking description: Break problems to fundamentals, rebuild from truth, eliminate hidden assumptions. changelog: Initial release with three-step protocol, assumption detection, and domain applications. metadata: {"clawdbot":{"emoji":"🔬","requires":{"bins":[]},"os":["linux","darwin","win32"]}} --- ## When to Use User faces complex problem where conventional solutions fail. Existing approaches seem inadequate. Need to challenge assumptions or innovate fundamentally. Stuck in "that's how it's always done" thinking. ## Quick Reference | Topic | File | |-------|------| | Decomposition techniques | `decomposition.md` | | Common assumption traps | `assumptions.md` | ## Core Rules ### 1. The Three-Step Protocol **Step 1 — Decompose:** Break the problem into fundamental components. - What are the absolute physical/logical constraints? - What is actually true vs what we assume is true? - Strip away all conventions, traditions, analogies. **Step 2 — Verify:** Challenge each component. - "Why do we believe this?" — trace to origin - "Is this a law of nature or a human convention?" - "What evidence supports this being fundamental?" **Step 3 — Rebuild:** Construct solution from verified fundamentals only. - Build up from proven truths - Ignore "how others do it" unless proven optimal - Each layer must connect to fundamentals ### 2. Identify Hidden Assumptions Before solving, expose what's assumed: | Assumption Type | Example | Question to Ask | |-----------------|---------|-----------------| | **Historical** | "We've always done it this way" | "Why did it start? Does that reason still apply?" | | **Authority** | "Experts say X" | "What's the underlying evidence?" | | **Analogical** | "It's like Y, so..." | "Are the underlying mechanics actually similar?" | | **Social** | "Everyone does it" | "Does popularity equal optimality?" | | **Resource** | "We can't afford to..." | "What if resources weren't the constraint?" | ### 3. The Constraint Test For each constraint ask: 1. Is this a **law of physics**? → Respect it 2. Is this a **logical necessity**? → Respect it 3. Is this a **regulation/rule**? → Can be changed (with effort) 4. Is this a **convention**? → Can be ignored 5. Is this an **assumption**? → Must be verified ### 4. When NOT to Use First Principles First principles is expensive. Use analogical reasoning when: - Problem is well-understood with proven solutions - Time pressure doesn't allow deep analysis - Marginal improvement is sufficient - Domain is stable with little innovation potential **Rule:** First principles for novel problems or when conventional fails. Analogy for routine optimization. ### 5. Socratic Decomposition Use recursive "why" questioning: ``` Problem: "Electric cars are too expensive" Why expensive? → Batteries cost a lot Why batteries expensive? → Materials + manufacturing Why materials expensive? → Cobalt, lithium pricing Why those materials? → Current chemistry requires them Is that fundamental? → No, chemistry can change Fundamental: Need energy storage. Not: Need cobalt batteries. ``` Continue until you hit physics, logic, or math — things that cannot be argued. ### 6. The Blank Slate Test Imagine the problem exists but NO solutions have been tried: - "If we were starting from scratch today, with current knowledge and technology, how would we solve this?" - This bypasses legacy thinking and sunk cost fallacy. ### 7. Output Format When applying first principles, structure response as: ``` ## Problem Statement [Clear definition of what we're solving] ## Assumed Constraints (to verify) - Constraint A — [source: historical/authority/etc.] - Constraint B — [source] ## Fundamental Truths - Truth 1 (physics/logic/math based) - Truth 2 ## Decomposition [Break down into components] ## Rebuilt Solution [Solution constructed from fundamentals only] ## Assumptions Challenged - [What we discovered wasn't actually fundamental] ``` ## Common Traps - **Stopping too early** → "Materials are expensive" isn't fundamental; "atoms have mass" is. Keep going. - **Confusing difficulty with impossibility** → "It's hard" ≠ "It's against physics" - **Rejecting all analogy** → Analogies are useful heuristics; first principles is for when they fail - **Analysis paralysis** → Set time limits; perfect decomposition isn't the goal, better thinking is - **Ignoring implementation** → A fundamental solution that can't be built is useless; constraints matter - **Lone wolf thinking** → First principles benefits from multiple perspectives challenging assumptions ## Domain Applications | Domain | First Principles Question | |--------|---------------------------| | **Business** | What does the customer fundamentally need (not want)? | | **Engineering** | What do physics and materials actually allow? | | **Product** | What job is being done at the most basic level? | | **Cost** | What are the raw inputs and minimum required labor? | | **Process** | What steps are logically necessary vs historically accumulated? | ## Security & Privacy **Data that stays local:** - All reasoning happens in conversation context - No data stored or transmitted **This skill does NOT:** - Store any information between sessions - Make network requests - Access external files ## Related Skills Install with `clawhub install <slug>` if user confirms: - `decide` — auto-learn decision patterns - `business` — validate and refine strategy - `ceo` — executive decision-making - `startup` — build from zero to PMF ## Feedback - If useful: `clawhub star first-principles-thinking` - Stay updated: `clawhub sync`


Security scan verdicts — ClawScan: clean | static analysis: clean | VirusTotal: clean | SkillSpector: clean (LOW)