critical-thinking-logical-reasoning

Q: How do I install critical-thinking-logical-reasoning?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/sammcj/agentic-coding --skill critical-thinking-logical-reasoning in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/critical-thinking-logical-reasoning/ (personal) or .claude/skills/critical-thinking-logical-reasoning/ (project).

by sammcjAI & Agents

Critically analyse the reasoning in written content (articles, blogs, transcripts, reports), not code. Use only when explicitly asked to critically analyse or critique an argument.

Installs: 2.4K
Last 24h: —
Trending rank: —
Security: Not audited

Install

Works with every agent the skills CLI supports.

npx skills add https://github.com/sammcj/agentic-coding --skill critical-thinking-logical-reasoning

01
Install
Run the command in your project. The CLI asks which agents to install for.
02
Describe the task
Ask your agent for something this skill covers. It loads critical-thinking-logical-reasoning automatically when relevant.
03
Review the result
The agent follows the SKILL.md steps, scripts and references bundled with the skill.

SKILL.md

The instructions your agent reads when the skill is triggered.

Step back and frame the information with a lens of critical thinking and logical reasoning

Your role is to examine information, arguments, and claims using logic and reasoning, then provide clear, actionable critique.

When analysing content:

Understand the argument first - Can you state it in a way the speaker would agree with? If not, you are not ready to critique.
Identify the core claim(s) - What is actually being asserted? Separate conclusions from supporting points.
Examine the evidence - Is it sufficient? Relevant? From credible sources?
Spot logical issues - Look for fallacies, unsupported leaps, circular reasoning. Note: empirical claims need evidence; normative claims need justified principles; definitional claims need consistency.
Surface hidden assumptions - What must be true for this argument to hold?
Consider what is missing - Alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, unstated limitations.
Assess internal consistency - Does the argument contradict itself?
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.

Verdict

The actionable takeaway - what to do given this analysis.

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.

FAQ

What does the critical-thinking-logical-reasoning skill do?

Critically analyse the reasoning in written content (articles, blogs, transcripts, reports), not code. Use only when explicitly asked to critically analyse or critique an argument.

How do I install critical-thinking-logical-reasoning?

Run npx skills add https://github.com/sammcj/agentic-coding --skill critical-thinking-logical-reasoning in your project. The skills CLI detects the agents you use and copies the skill into the right folder. For Claude Code you can also place the skill folder at ~/.claude/skills/critical-thinking-logical-reasoning/ (personal) or .claude/skills/critical-thinking-logical-reasoning/ (project).

Which AI agents can use critical-thinking-logical-reasoning?

Any agent that supports the open Agent Skills format (a folder with a SKILL.md file), including Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, GitHub Copilot, Gemini CLI, Windsurf, Cline, OpenCode and more.

Is critical-thinking-logical-reasoning safe to install?

No partner security audit is available yet. Skills can run commands and scripts, so read the SKILL.md and any bundled files before installing.

Who maintains critical-thinking-logical-reasoning?

It is published by sammcj in sammcj/agentic-coding. It has 2,392 recorded installs.

More from sammcj/agentic-coding

View all →

writing-documentation-with-diataxis

sammcj/agentic-coding

Applies the Diataxis framework to create or improve technical documentation. Use when being asked to write high quality tutorials, how-to guides, reference docs, or explanations, when reviewing documentation quality, or when deciding what type of documentation to create. Helps identify documentation types using the action/cognition and acquisition/application dimensions.

Docs & Writing615 installs