Critical Thinking Logical Reasoning
Critically analyze articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports when asked—separate claims from evidence and surface logical gaps without reviewing code.
Overview
Critical-thinking-logical-reasoning is an agent skill most often used in Idea (also Validate, Launch) that critically analyzes written content—articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports—not code.
Install
npx skills add https://github.com/sammcj/agentic-coding --skill critical-thinking-logical-reasoningWhat is this skill?
- Six-step analysis flow: understand argument, core claims, evidence, logic issues, assumptions, gaps
- Explicitly excludes code review—written content such as articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports only
- Flags fallacies, unsupported leaps, circular reasoning, false dichotomies, and weak generalizations
- Separates empirical, normative, and definitional claims with different evidence standards
- Optimizes signal-to-noise so summaries preserve domain insights for later human or agent readers
- 6-step written-content analysis checklist
Adoption & trust: 1.4k installs on skills.sh; 139 GitHub stars; 3/3 security scanners passed (skills.sh audits).
What problem does it solve?
You are drowning in articles and transcripts but need a structured critique of claims and logic, not another generic summary or a code review.
Who is it for?
Solo builders who want steel-manned critique of reports, competitor blogs, or meeting transcripts on demand.
Skip if: Code review, security audits, or tasks where you did not explicitly request critical analysis of written material.
When should I use this skill?
You are explicitly asked to critically analyse written content such as articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports—not code.
What do I get? / Deliverables
You receive a clear breakdown of claims, evidence quality, logical issues, assumptions, and gaps suitable for decisions or tighter notes.
- Structured argument critique
- Identified fallacies and assumption list
- Evidence sufficiency assessment
Recommended Skills
Journey fit
Spans multiple journey phases - primary shelf plus alternate fits below.
Research and competitive reading happen earliest in the journey; this skill shelves there even though the same critique applies to launch content and growth narratives. Research is where you ingest external written material and must judge argument quality before acting on it.
Where it fits
Critique a competitor’s thought-leadership post before you copy their positioning.
Weigh claims in a funding announcement for relevance and missing evidence.
Stress-test a consultant’s PDF recommendations before locking MVP scope.
Review launch blog draft for unsupported leaps before publishing.
Audit a guest post outline for weak generalizations before SEO publication.
How it compares
Written-argument critique workflow—not a code-reviewer skill or a fast TL;DR summarizer.
Common Questions / FAQ
Who is critical-thinking-logical-reasoning for?
Indie builders and agent users who need rigorous logical review of articles, blogs, transcripts, and reports when explicitly asked.
When should I use critical-thinking-logical-reasoning?
In Idea research on competitor posts, Validate when judging market claims, or Launch when stress-testing positioning copy—always for prose, not repositories.
Is critical-thinking-logical-reasoning safe to install?
Review the Security Audits panel on this page; the skill processes text you supply and does not by itself call external APIs.
SKILL.md
READMESKILL.md - Critical Thinking Logical Reasoning
The following guidelines help you think critically and perform logical reasoning. Your role is to examine information, arguments, and claims using logic and reasoning, then provide clear, actionable critique. One of your goals is to avoid signal dilution, context collapse, quality degradation and degraded reasoning for future agent or human understanding of the meeting by ensuring you keep the signal to noise ratio high and that domain insights are preserved. When analysing content: 1. **Understand the argument first** - Can you state it in a way the speaker would agree with? If not, you are not ready to critique. 2. **Identify the core claim(s)** - What is actually being asserted? Separate conclusions from supporting points. 3. **Examine the evidence** - Is it sufficient? Relevant? From credible sources? 4. **Spot logical issues** - Look for fallacies, unsupported leaps, circular reasoning, false dichotomies, appeals to authority/emotion, hasty generalisations. Note: empirical claims need evidence; normative claims need justified principles; definitional claims need consistency. 5. **Surface hidden assumptions** - What must be true for this argument to hold? 6. **Consider what is missing** - Alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, unstated limitations. 7. **Assess internal consistency** - Does the argument contradict itself? 8. **Consider burden of proof** - Who needs to prove what? Is the evidence proportional to the claim's significance? Structure your response as: ## Summary One sentence stating the core claim and your overall assessment of its strength. ## Key Issues Bullet the most significant problems, each with a brief explanation of why it matters. Where an argument is weak, briefly note how it could be strengthened - this distinguishes fixable flaws from fundamental problems. If there are no problems, omit this section. ## Questions to Probe 2-5 questions that would clarify ambiguity, test key assumptions, or reveal whether the argument holds under scrutiny. Frame as questions a decision-maker should ask before acting on this reasoning. ## Bottom Line One-two sentence summary and actionable takeaway. Guidelines: - Assume individuals have good intentions by default; at worst, people may be misinformed or mistaken in their reasoning. Be charitable but rigorous in your critique. - Prioritise issues that genuinely affect the conclusion over minor technical flaws. Your purpose is to inform well-reasoned decisions, not to manufacture disagreement or nitpick. - Be direct. State problems plainly without hedging. - Critique the argument, not the person making it. - Critique the reasoning and logic. Do not fact-check empirical claims unless they are obviously implausible or internally contradictory. - Apply the 'so what' test: even if you identify a flaw, consider whether it materially affects the practical decision or conclusion at hand. - Acknowledge uncertainty in your own analysis. Flag where your critique depends on assumptions or where you lack domain context. - Distinguish between 'flawed' and 'wrong' - weak reasoning does not automatically mean false conclusions. - If the argument is sound, say so. Do not manufacture criticism. - Provide concise output, no fluff. - Always use Australian English spelling.