Thinking Method Selector

Match the user's situation to one thinking method, say why, and run it. Pick by what the user must decide or produce next, not by keywords.

When to use

• The user is stuck, torn or overwhelmed and has not said how they want to think about it.
• A problem is stated loosely and several methods could apply.
• The user asks "which framework should I use?".

Skip: execution tasks (write, fix, build), plain factual questions, or any request that already names a method (use that method).

How to run

1. Restate the situation in one line, including the decision or output the user needs next.
2. Gather first. If you can read the repo, docs or data that frame the problem, do it before choosing. Ask at most one question, only if two methods fit equally and the answer would change the pick.
3. Choose one method from the table below. Say in one sentence why it fits and why the nearest alternative does not.
4. Run it. If the named skill is installed, follow its instructions. If it is not, use the matching outline under "Fallback outlines" and say which method you are using.
5. Offer at most one follow-on method (for example "after the pre-mortem, a tradeoff analysis would settle which option").

Situation to method

When two fit, prefer the one that matches the decision the user must make next: options to pick from means a tradeoff analysis; a plan to commit to means a pre-mortem; a past failure means five whys.

Fallback outlines

Use these only when the matching skill is not installed. Keep each to the steps shown.

• tradeoff-analysis: list options (include do nothing), screen must-haves, 3-7 independent criteria with weights, score with a basis, test what flips the winner, check how hard it is to reverse, recommend and say what would change it.
• prioritization: state the goal and capacity, choose RICE (Reach x Impact x Confidence / Effort) or MoSCoW, score with bases, rank, draw the cut line, name what is not done.
• five-whys: write an observable problem; ask why of each previous answer; mark each verified or hypothesis; stop at a cause the team can change; add contain, fix, prevent actions.
• pre-mortem: assume the plan failed; list specific causes across people, process, tech, market; rank by likelihood and impact; add prevent, detect or respond actions with owners; set tripwires.
• critical-thinking: restate the claim; list evidence as cited or missing; list assumptions with "if false"; trace the logic for gaps and bias; give alternatives; conclude with strength and what would change it.
• analytical-thinking: frame the question and baseline; build a driver tree; rank hypotheses with falsifiers; map evidence; answer with the key uncertainty and next data.
• fermi-estimation: write the formula; give low and high with a basis for each factor; combine; cross-check a second way; name the dominant factor.
• swot-analysis: define subject and scope; sort items by the internal / external test with evidence; keep the top ones; pair cells into actions; name next steps.
• strategic-thinking: define the win and non-goals; read the landscape; test for advantage; compare 2-4 options with bet, cost, kill signal; choose; list risks and a review trigger.
• systems-thinking: set the boundary; list stocks and flows; find reinforcing and balancing loops; note delays; pick leverage points and their backfire risk.
• first-principles-thinking: state the convention; question each assumption; keep only what is fundamental; rebuild from it; compare with the conventional path.
• design-thinking: describe users, jobs and pains from real input; write a point of view and how-might-we questions; ideate; sketch low-fidelity prototypes; plan a test that can fail.
• creative-thinking: set the brief; generate many ideas using different triggers; combine pairs; pick three with reasons; list a next step.
• lateral-thinking: write a provocation; extract a usable principle; step back to broader directions and fan out to concepts and ideas; tag candidates.
• ethical-thinking: list who is affected; name value tensions; weigh harms and benefits with plausibility; check who bears cost and who can say no; give options with safeguards and the strongest objection.
• six-thinking-hats: run facts, feelings, risks, benefits, new ideas as separate passes; close with the main tension, a recommendation and a next step.

Pitfalls

• Choosing by keywords. "Why" can mean five whys, analytical thinking or systems thinking; match the next decision, not the word.
• Running two methods at once. Run one, then offer the next.
• Interrogating the user. One question at most, then proceed.
• Claiming a skill is loaded when it is not. Say which outline you are following.

Worked example: references/example.md.

Checklist

• Situation restated with the decision or output needed next
• One method chosen, with the reason and why the nearest alternative does not fit
• Method run (skill if installed, otherwise the fallback outline), not just named
• At most one question asked and at most one follow-on offered