thelobbi/claude

complex-reasoning

Multi-step reasoning patterns and frameworks for systematic problem solving. Activate for Chain-of-Thought, Tree-of-Thought, hypothesis-driven debugging, and structured analytical approaches that leverage extended thinking.

First seen Jan 24, 2026

Installation

$ npx skills add thelobbi/claude --skill complex-reasoning

Similar popular skills

Related neighbors and high-traction skills in the same topics — useful to compare before installing.

Also in this package

Other skills from thelobbi/claude · top by installs.

npx skills add thelobbi/claude

Browse all from thelobbi/claude

More details

Agent compatibility

Declared targets from SKILL.md / docs. Unmarked agents are not listed — the skill may still install via the CLI.

Claude Code Not declared
Cursor Not declared
Codex Not declared
GitHub Copilot Not declared
Windsurf Not declared
Gemini CLI Not declared
Cline Not declared
OpenCode Not declared

Also listed on

Alternate registries and mirrors of this skill.

Repository health

Stars 21
License LICENSE
Default branch main
Open issues 5
Status Active

Skill metadata

Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.

Allowed toolsBash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Task, WebFetch

Package contents

Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.

  • skill md SKILL.md 7,240 B
  • docs SUMMARY.md 248 B

History

  1. First seen on skills.sh
  2. First recorded snapshot · 164 installs

SKILL.md

Complex Reasoning Skill

Structured reasoning frameworks for systematic problem solving, leveraging extended thinking capabilities for deep analysis.

When to Use

  • Debugging complex issues with multiple potential causes
  • Architecture decisions requiring trade-off analysis
  • Root cause analysis for production incidents
  • Performance optimization with multiple variables
  • Security vulnerability assessment
  • Code refactoring with many dependencies

Reasoning Frameworks

Chain-of-Thought (CoT)

Linear step-by-step reasoning for sequential problems.

## Chain-of-Thought Analysis

**Problem**: [State the problem clearly]

**Step 1: Understand the Context**
- What do we know?
- What are the constraints?
- What is the expected outcome?

**Step 2: Identify Key Components**
- Component A: [description]
- Component B: [description]
- Interactions: [how they relate]

**Step 3: Analyze Each Component**
- Component A analysis...
- Component B analysis...

**Step 4: Synthesize Findings**
- Key insight 1
- Key insight 2

**Step 5: Formulate Solution**
- Recommended approach
- Rationale
- Trade-offs

**Conclusion**: [Final recommendation with confidence level]

Tree-of-Thought (ToT)

Branching exploration for problems with multiple solution paths.

## Tree-of-Thought Exploration

**Root Problem**: [Problem statement]

### Branch 1: Approach A
├── Pros: [List advantages]
├── Cons: [List disadvantages]
├── Feasibility: [High/Medium/Low]
├── Sub-branch 1.1: [Variation]
│   └── Outcome: [Expected result]
└── Sub-branch 1.2: [Variation]
    └── Outcome: [Expected result]

### Branch 2: Approach B
├── Pros: [List advantages]
├── Cons: [List disadvantages]
├── Feasibility: [High/Medium/Low]
└── Sub-branches: [...]

### Branch 3: Approach C
├── Pros: [...]
├── Cons: [...]
└── Feasibility: [...]

### Evaluation Matrix
| Approach | Feasibility | Impact | Risk | Score |
|----------|-------------|--------|------|-------|
| A        | High        | Medium | Low  | 8/10  |
| B        | Medium      | High   | Med  | 7/10  |
| C        | Low         | High   | High | 5/10  |

**Selected Path**: Branch [X] because [reasoning]

MECE Framework

Mutually Exclusive, Collectively Exhaustive analysis.

## MECE Analysis

**Problem Space**: [Define the complete problem]

### Category 1: [Mutually exclusive category]
- Sub-element 1.1
- Sub-element 1.2
- Sub-element 1.3

### Category 2: [Mutually exclusive category]
- Sub-element 2.1
- Sub-element 2.2

### Category 3: [Mutually exclusive category]
- Sub-element 3.1
- Sub-element 3.2
- Sub-element 3.3

**Completeness Check**:
- [ ] Categories are mutually exclusive (no overlap)
- [ ] Categories are collectively exhaustive (cover all cases)
- [ ] Each sub-element belongs to exactly one category

**Priority Matrix**:
| Category | Urgency | Impact | Action |
|----------|---------|--------|--------|
| 1        | High    | High   | Now    |
| 2        | Medium  | High   | Next   |
| 3        | Low     | Medium | Later  |

Hypothesis-Driven Debugging

Systematic approach to debugging complex issues.

## Hypothesis-Driven Debug Session

**Symptom**: [Observed behavior]
**Expected**: [What should happen]
**Environment**: [Relevant context]

### Hypothesis 1: [Most likely cause]
**Evidence For**:
- [Supporting observation 1]
- [Supporting observation 2]

**Evidence Against**:
- [Contradicting observation]

**Test**: [How to validate]
**Result**: [Confirmed/Refuted]

### Hypothesis 2: [Second most likely]
**Evidence For**:
- [...]

**Evidence Against**:
- [...]

**Test**: [...]
**Result**: [...]

### Root Cause Identified
**Cause**: [Confirmed root cause]
**Evidence Chain**: [How we proved it]
**Fix**: [Remediation steps]
**Prevention**: [How to prevent recurrence]

Code Analysis Patterns

Dependency Analysis

## Dependency Analysis: [Component Name]

### Direct Dependencies
| Dependency | Version | Purpose | Risk Level |
|------------|---------|---------|------------|
| dep-a      | 2.3.1   | Auth    | Low        |
| dep-b      | 1.0.0   | Data    | Medium     |

### Transitive Dependencies
- Total: [N] packages
- Security vulnerabilities: [N]
- Outdated: [N]

### Dependency Graph

[component] ├── dep-a │ ├── sub-dep-1 │ └── sub-dep-2 └── dep-b └── sub-dep-3


### Risk Assessment
1. **High Risk**: [Dependencies with known issues]
2. **Medium Risk**: [Outdated or unmaintained]
3. **Low Risk**: [Stable, well-maintained]

### Recommendations
1. [Action item 1]
2. [Action item 2]

Impact Analysis

## Impact Analysis: [Proposed Change]

### Affected Components
| Component | Impact Type | Severity | Test Required |
|-----------|-------------|----------|---------------|
| Service A | Direct      | High     | Yes           |
| Service B | Indirect    | Medium   | Yes           |
| Client C  | Downstream  | Low      | Optional      |

### Risk Assessment
- **Breaking Changes**: [List any]
- **Performance Impact**: [Expected effect]
- **Data Migration**: [Required/Not required]

### Rollback Plan
1. [Step 1]
2. [Step 2]
3. [Verification]

### Recommendation
[Go/No-Go with reasoning]

Integration with Extended Thinking

When using these frameworks with extended thinking:

# Enable extended thinking for complex reasoning
response = client.messages.create(
    model="claude-opus-4-8",
    max_tokens=16000,
    thinking={"type": "adaptive"},
    output_config={"effort": "high"},  # deeper reasoning for complex problems
    system="""You are a systematic problem solver. Use structured
    reasoning frameworks like Chain-of-Thought, Tree-of-Thought,
    or MECE analysis as appropriate for the problem.""",
    messages=[{
        "role": "user",
        "content": "Analyze this architecture decision using ToT..."
    }]
)

Best Practices

  1. Choose the right framework: CoT for linear problems, ToT for branching decisions
  2. Document your reasoning: Makes it reviewable and repeatable
  3. Validate assumptions: Each step should build on verified facts
  4. Consider alternatives: Always explore at least 2-3 approaches
  5. Quantify when possible: Use metrics to compare options
  6. Time-box exploration: Set limits on analysis depth

See Also

  • [[extended-thinking]] - Enable deep reasoning capabilities
  • [[deep-analysis]] - Analytical templates
  • [[debugging]] - General debugging patterns
  • [[testing]] - Validation strategies