Question inherited baggage. Rebuild only from bedrock you can defend.
How to run it with this skill: one clearly headed section per step in this order: Surface → Question → Bedrock → Rebuild → Implications.
In one short block:
If immutable constraints (physics, law, budget) are unclear, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note unknowns or working guesses in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).
State the conventional answer or analogy people rely on. List loaded words or hidden comparisons ("like Uber for…").
For each major assumption: Assumption: … — Why believed? (authority, analogy, experience) — What if false?
List fundamental truths that survive scrutiny — physics, logic identities, legal musts, documented preferences of real users, arithmetic. Label each [FUNDAMENTAL] vs [STILL ASSUMPTION].
Prefer three or more honest bedrock items when that is credible; if fewer are honest, say why in one line.
From only [FUNDAMENTAL] items, derive conclusions in numbered steps. No smuggled analogies; if you need a new premise, add it to Bedrock first with a tag.
So what for decisions: what changes vs the conventional path? Cost of being wrong if a tagged assumption fails.
Add a short vs convention contrast (a few bullets or a two-column mini-summary) if it clarifies the decision.
[FUNDAMENTAL] / [STILL ASSUMPTION]共 1 个版本