npx skills add smithery/neversight --skill complex-reasoning
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.
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.
Browser automation CLI for AI agents. Use when the user needs to interact with websites, includ…
810.4K installsDebug Azure production issues on Azure using AppLens, Azure Monitor, resource health, and safe …
568.9K installsPre-deployment validation for Azure readiness. Run deep checks on configuration, infrastructure…
567.7K installsConfigure Azure API Management as an AI Gateway for AI models, MCP tools, and agents. WHEN: sem…
566.3K installsAzure VM/VMSS router. WHEN: create / provision / deploy / spin-up VM, recommend VM size, compar…
510K installsPostgres best practices maintained by Supabase, for Postgres running anywhere. Load this skill …
391.6K installsAlso in this package
Other skills from thelobbi/claude · top by installs.
npx skills add 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.
Also listed on
Alternate registries and mirrors of this skill.
Repository health
main
Skill metadata
Parsed from SKILL.md frontmatter.
Bash, Read, Write, Edit, Glob, Grep, Task, WebFetchPackage contents
Files included with this skill beyond the listing page.
-
skill md
SKILL.md7,240 B -
docs
SUMMARY.md248 B
History
- First seen on skills.sh
- 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
- Choose the right framework: CoT for linear problems, ToT for branching decisions
- Document your reasoning: Makes it reviewable and repeatable
- Validate assumptions: Each step should build on verified facts
- Consider alternatives: Always explore at least 2-3 approaches
- Quantify when possible: Use metrics to compare options
- 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