First Principles Thinking
Systematic first principles thinking for any problem domain.
Install
npx skills add mindfold-ai/Trellis --skill first-principles-thinking -g -a claude-code -y- Repository
- mindfold-ai/Trellis15.1k
- Category
- Design
- Updated
- 1mo ago
- License
- MIT
- Context cost
- Mediumabout 3,000 tokens
- Runs scripts
- No, instructions only
What it does
Systematic first principles thinking for any problem domain. Use when the user says "analyze from first principles", "第一性原理", "从根本分析", "从零开始思考", "think from scratch", "question this design", "is this the right approach", "challenge assumptions", "挑战假设", "为什么要这样做", "有没有更好的方案", "why are we doing it this way", or needs to evaluate decisions, designs, or strategies without relying on analogies, conventions, or "best practices". Also triggers on "这个设计合理吗", "从本质上看", "回到基本面", "what's really true here", "what are we assuming", or any request to decompose a problem to its fundamentals.
First Principles Thinking
A systematic approach to decomposing complex problems into irreducible truths and reasoning upward from there, avoiding the trap of reasoning by analogy, convention, or "best practice".
When to Use
- Evaluating whether an architecture, design, or strategy is truly optimal
- Questioning "best practices" that may not fit the current context
- Breaking through when conventional solutions feel inadequate
- Making foundational decisions with long-term impact
- Challenging inherited assumptions in legacy systems or legacy thinking
- Any moment where "we've always done it this way" is the primary justification
When NOT to Use
- Trivial decisions (use Occam's Razor instead, just pick the simplest)
- Time-critical emergencies (act first, analyze later)
- Well-validated problems with proven solutions (don't reinvent the wheel)
- When you lack domain expertise AND can't acquire it (first principles without knowledge = naive solutions)
Core Methodology: 6 Phases
Phase 0: Frame the Question, Establish Axioms
Before analyzing anything, define the irreducible truths that constrain this domain.
Axioms = facts that are independently verifiable, cannot be further decomposed, and violating them definitely causes failure.
How to identify axioms:
- Ask: "Can this be further decomposed?", If yes, it's not an axiom yet.
- Ask: "Is this provably true, not just commonly believed?", If uncertain, it's an assumption.
- Ask: "Would violating this definitely cause failure?", If maybe, it's a preference.
Gate: Must produce ≥3 axioms before proceeding. Each axiom stated in one sentence with a "why irreducible" justification.
### Axioms
1. [Axiom], [Why this cannot be further decomposed]
2. [Axiom], [Why this is provably true]
3. [Axiom], [Why violating this causes failure]
Deep methodology:
references/axiom-based-reasoning.md
