critical-thinking
From the author
Audit the reasoning of a document or argument (memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, the user's own draft): claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, each anchored to quoted text. Use whenever the user wants reasoning examined, in any language ("audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft"; Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also use when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their reasoning profile. Not for company-level strategic bets (strategy-board) or learning a topic through dialogue (socratic-questor).
Install
npx skills add tronghieu/agent-skills --skill critical-thinking -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/critical-thinking/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
- Ships scripts we have not reviewedLow
Why 77
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- scientific-critical-thinkingK-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skillsEvaluates scientific claims and evidence quality. Applies to experimental design validity, biases and confounders, statistical interpretation, evidence grading frameworks (GRADE, Cochrane Risk of Bias), and teaching critical analysis. Supports evidence appraisal and identifying flaws; formal peer review writing belongs to peer-review.Science★ 54.5K
- critical-readingTibsfox/gsd-skill-creatorAnalytical evaluation of texts for argument quality, author purpose, bias, credibility, and rhetorical strategy. Covers the distinction between comprehension and critique, argument analysis (claims, evidence, reasoning, warrants), rhetorical appeals (ethos, pathos, logos), bias identification (selection bias, confirmation bias, loaded language, omission), source credibility evaluation (CRAAP test, lateral reading), propaganda techniques, media literacy, and multi-text synthesis. Use when evaluating arguments, identifying bias, assessing source reliability, analyzing rhetoric, or synthesizing across multiple texts on the same topic.Testing★ 71
- rethinkOvid/paadUse when options, a recommendation, or an already-chosen approach are on the table and the reasoning under them has not been independently checked — especially when the case rests on cited documentation, remembered behavior, or premises nobody verified. Not for generating alternatives, and not for critiquing a spec, which is /pushback.Planning★ 143
- critical-perspectiveinfranodus/skillsEngage in critical thinking by questioning assumptions, exploring alternative perspectives, and uncovering latent topics in conversations. Use when discussions could benefit from deeper exploration, when identifying blind spots, or when broadening understanding through respectful challenge and curiosity-driven inquiry.Other★ 122
- grammar-checkphuryn/pm-skillsIdentify grammar, logical, and flow errors in text and suggest targeted fixes without rewriting the entire text. Use when proofreading content, checking writing quality, or reviewing a draft.Writing★ 27.4K
- narrative-buildingscdenney/open-science-skillsDrafts or audits a scientific paper’s introduction and framing — the real-world "why", an evidence audit, the funnel from theory to a falsifiable if-then with a named estimand, bridges across experiments, and a contribution list matched to the design. Use when the user asks to write, restructure, or critique an introduction, motivate or frame a paper, repair a gap-in-the-literature opening, sharpen or calibrate a contribution claim, or connect experiments into one argument. Sentence-level flow and wording are out of scope.Design★ 69
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in