<p align="center">
  <picture>
    <img alt="mu-critical-thinking" src="assets/default-banner.png" width="100%">
  </picture>
</p>

# 🧠 mu-critical-thinking · 批判性思维提问教练

> No lectures — just critical questions that expose fallacies. Scans any argument across 12 dimensions, names the logical fallacies by sentence, and trains you to ask the questions that break weak reasoning.
>
> 📚 [Reading Notes PPT: "Asking the Right Questions — A Guide to Critical Thinking"](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/SgkY1jdqpi6dOvaA0W6smg)

**English** | [中文](README_CN.md) | [🌐 Landing Page](https://muippt.github.io/mu-critical-thinking/)

[![WeChat](https://img.shields.io/badge/muippt-07C160?logo=wechat&logoColor=white)](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YLtXENt_7WzO2DgJCFUtPA)
[![Xiaohongshu](https://img.shields.io/badge/muippt-FF2442?logo=xiaohongshu&logoColor=white)](https://xhslink.com/m/ESxtgUNMdl)
[![Book](https://img.shields.io/badge/Book-Visual%20Team%20Management-BBDDE5?logo=bookstack&logoColor=white)](https://item.m.jd.com/product/14547345.html)
[![mu-skillhub](https://img.shields.io/badge/mu--skillhub-9E95B7?logo=refinedgithub&logoColor=white)](https://muippt.github.io/mu-skill-hub/)
[![License](https://img.shields.io/github/license/muippt/mu-critical-thinking)](LICENSE)
[![Version](https://img.shields.io/github/v/release/muippt/mu-critical-thinking)](https://github.com/muippt/mu-critical-thinking/releases)
[![Stars](https://img.shields.io/github/stars/muippt/mu-critical-thinking)](https://github.com/muippt/mu-critical-thinking/stargazers)

---

### 💡 Usage Examples

📄 **"Here's the proposal deck — poke holes in it."**
Paste the text and get a 12-dimension diagnostic report: conclusion clarity, reason sufficiency, hidden assumptions, evidence tier, and an overall Strong / Medium / Weak rating.

🕵️ **"Is there anything logically wrong with this?"**
Sentence-level fallacy scan across 12 classic fallacies — each hit quotes the original line, explains why it fails, and offers a rewrite.

❓ **"Train me. Ask me the hard questions."**
Socratic mode walks you down a 5-layer ladder — surface facts → reasons and evidence → hidden assumptions → alternative explanations → verification — in 5 rounds or fewer.

🔎 **"Audit this decision before I commit."**
A 12-item decision quality checklist plus reversibility rating, worst-case test, expected-regret test, and an explicit Kill Switch — the conditions under which you should walk away.

📊 **"Does this data actually say what they claim?"**
Splits any chart or report into *what the data tells you* / *what it doesn't* / *the traps hiding inside*, checked against 7 data traps and a 7-level evidence hierarchy.

⚔️ **"Prepare me for both sides of this debate."**
Balanced pro/con tables with best evidence, likely rebuttals, and your counter-rebuttals — plus the key clash points and the fallacies you're most likely to commit yourself.

📋 **"Give me a question list for tomorrow's review."**
Checklist mode outputs a prioritized set of must-ask questions, each tagged with the dimension it tests and what it means if nobody can answer it.

💼 **"How should I think about this at work?"**
8 workplace scenarios pre-mapped to the dimensions that matter most: proposal review, interview evaluation, data reporting, conflict mediation, strategic decisions, report auditing, managing up, and performance evaluation.

---

### ✨ Core Highlights

#### 🧠 12-Dimension Argument Scan — Full Coverage, No Skipping

Built on *Asking the Right Questions* (Browne & Keeley). Every scan walks all 12 dimensions and rates each ✅ Pass / ⚠️ Weak / ❌ Flawed. Dimensions can be marked "insufficient information" but never silently dropped.

| # | Dimension | What It Tests |
|---|-----------|---------------|
| ① | Issue & Conclusion | Is the issue descriptive or prescriptive? Is the conclusion identifiable? |
| ② | Reasons | Are reasons independent, relevant, sufficient (≥2), and verifiable? |
| ③ | Ambiguity | Do key terms have operational definitions, or is the argument riding on vague words? |
| ④ | Value Assumptions | Which value won the trade-off — efficiency vs fairness, short vs long term? |
| ⑤ | Descriptive Assumptions | What unstated belief bridges reasons to conclusion? When does it break? |
| ⑥ | Reasoning Fallacies | Any of the 12 fallacies in the inference chain? |
| ⑦ | Evidence Credibility | Which tier of the evidence pyramid? Sample size, method, conflicts of interest? |
| ⑧ | Rival Causes | Confounders, reverse causation, third factors, or plain coincidence? |
| ⑨ | Statistical Traps | Base rate, denominator, time window, mean vs median, framing? |
| ⑩ | Omitted Information | Counter-evidence, costs, long-term effects, failure cases, missing stakeholders? |
| ⑪ | Reasonable Conclusions | What *other* conclusions do the same reasons support? Absolute, conditional, or probabilistic? |
| ⑫ | Decision Quality | Alternatives compared, worst case, reversibility, kill switch, expected regret? |

#### 🔍 12 Logical Fallacies — Quick Reference with Repair Scripts

Each entry ships with a definition, a recognition pattern, typical phrasings, workplace examples, and ready-to-use correction language.

| Fallacy | One-Line Tell |
|---------|---------------|
| Ad Hominem | Attacks the speaker's background instead of the claim |
| Straw Man | "So you're saying…" followed by something they never said |
| Slippery Slope | A → B → C → D with no evidence for any link |
| False Dichotomy | "Either… or…" when a middle path exists |
| Appeal to Authority | "Big companies do it" replaces analysis of fit |
| Circular Reasoning | The reason is the conclusion rephrased |
| Hasty Generalization | "All / every time / always" from a handful of cases |
| False Cause | B happened after A, therefore A caused B |
| Red Herring | Answers a question nobody asked |
| Appeal to Emotion | Guilt and fear substituted for evidence |
| Bandwagon | Popularity treated as proof of correctness |
| False Analogy | "X is just like Y" where the key features differ |

#### 🎯 Socratic Questioning — 5-Layer Progressive Depth

Guided mode never dumps a wall of questions. Maximum 2 questions per round, maximum 5 rounds, with feedback after every answer and a synthesis of your weakest link at the end.

```
Layer 1  Surface facts      "What exactly? Where's the data?"
Layer 2  Reasons & evidence "Why do you believe that? Based on what?"
Layer 3  Hidden assumptions "What are you taking for granted? Does it hold?"
Layer 4  Alternatives       "What other explanation or option exists?"
Layer 5  Verification       "How would you test this? What does it cost?"
```

#### 📊 Decision Audit with a Kill Switch

The 12-item decision checklist ends with something most frameworks skip: an explicit Kill Switch — the pre-committed conditions under which you re-evaluate or abandon the decision, so sunk cost can't hold you hostage. Output includes decision type (reversible / irreversible, risk level), an X/12 completeness score, and a verdict of Execute / Reinforce First / Hold.

#### ⚠️ 7 Data Traps + 7-Level Evidence Hierarchy

| Data Trap | Catch It By Asking |
|-----------|--------------------|
| Base rate fallacy | "What's the denominator? What's the absolute number?" |
| Mean vs median | "What's the median? What does the distribution look like?" |
| Cherry-picked time window | "Why start here? Show me YoY *and* MoM." |
| Survivorship bias | "What about the ones that failed or churned?" |
| Simpson's paradox | "Does it still hold when you split the groups?" |
| Missing data | "Which metrics went down and weren't shown?" |
| Correlation as causation | "What's the mechanism? Could C be causing both?" |

Evidence is ranked across 7 tiers, from meta-analysis and randomized controlled trials down to expert opinion and personal anecdote — so "I've done this before" and "our A/B test showed" never carry the same weight.

#### 💼 8 Workplace Scenario Mappings

Each scenario comes pre-loaded with its priority dimensions, a must-ask question list, the fallacies that show up most often there, and the exact phrasing to use.

| Scenario | Priority Dimensions | Most Common Trap |
|----------|--------------------|--------------------|
| Proposal review | ② ⑥ ⑦ | Appeal to authority |
| Interview evaluation | ⑥ ⑦ ⑧ | Halo effect / confirmation bias |
| Data reporting | ⑨ ⑩ ⑧ | Selective presentation |
| Conflict mediation | ③ ④ ⑤ | Straw man |
| Strategic decision | ⑪ ⑫ ⑩ | Slippery slope |
| Report auditing | ① ② ⑥ | Unclear conclusion |
| Managing up | ② ⑦ ④ | Self-centered reasoning |
| Performance evaluation | ⑦ ⑥ ⑧ | Recency effect |

---

### 📌 Comparison

| Dimension | mu-critical-thinking | Generic ChatGPT prompt | Toulmin Model | Six Thinking Hats |
|-----------|:--------------------:|:----------------------:|:-------------:|:-----------------:|
| Diagnostic framework | 12 fixed dimensions, full coverage | Varies every run | 6 components | 6 perspectives |
| Fallacy identification | 12 fallacies, sentence-level quoting | Occasional, unnamed | Not covered | Not covered |
| Repair suggestions | Correction script per fallacy | Generic advice | Not covered | Not covered |
| Evidence grading | 7-tier hierarchy | None | Qualitative only | None |
| Data trap detection | 7 named traps | None | None | None |
| Decision auditing | 12-item checklist + Kill Switch | None | None | Partial (black hat) |
| Interactive training | Socratic mode, 5 rounds max | Unbounded chat | Static model | Meeting protocol |
| Debate preparation | Symmetric pro/con + clash points | One-sided by default | Single-argument | Not designed for it |
| Workplace grounding | 8 mapped scenarios | Generic | Academic | Generic |
| Anti-over-diagnosis rule | Yes — says "no fallacies found" when true | Tends to invent problems | N/A | N/A |
| Output format | Fixed report templates | Free text | Diagram | Discussion notes |
| Setup cost | Drop in a folder | Rewrite prompt each time | Learn the theory | Train the whole team |

---

### 🚀 Three Interaction Modes & Six Workflows

**Three interaction modes:**

| Mode | Behavior | When It Activates |
|------|----------|-------------------|
| 🚀 Quick (default) | Paste → auto 12-dimension scan → diagnostic report | Text pasted with no mode specified |
| 💬 Guided | Socratic dialogue, decision audit, or data coaching | You say "train me", "audit this", "teach me to read this" |
| 📋 Checklist | Structured question list, no back-and-forth | You say "give me a question list" / "what should I ask at the review" |

**Six workflows:**

| Workflow | Scenario | Trigger |
|----------|----------|---------|
| **Argument Quality Assessment** | You have a proposal, memo, or claim and want to know if it holds up | Paste any text with no mode specified → auto 12-dimension scan |
| **Logical Fallacy Identification** | You sense something is off but can't name it | "Is there anything logically wrong with this?" |
| **Socratic Questioning Training** | You want to build the reflex, not just get an answer | "Train me" / "ask me questions" / "help me prepare follow-ups" |
| **Decision Quality Audit** | A consequential call is about to be made | "Audit this decision" / "should we do this?" |
| **Data Interpretation Coach** | A chart or report looks too good to be true | "Is this data reliable?" / "how should I read this?" |
| **Debate Preparation** | You need both sides before you pick one | "Prepare pro and con arguments for me" |

---

### ⚙️ Technical Specs

| Item | Description |
|------|-------------|
| Type | Markdown-based AI skill — no code, no runtime, no build step |
| Dependencies | None. Zero npm/pip packages, zero API keys |
| Compatible with | Claude Code, Claude Desktop, and any agent supporting the Skill / SKILL.md convention |
| Package size | ~60 KB total (SKILL.md + 4 reference files) |
| Structure | 1 SKILL.md + 4 references (twelve-dimensions, logical-fallacies, evidence-evaluation, workplace-scenarios) |
| Input | Plain text, proposals, reports, meeting notes, data descriptions, chart summaries |
| Output | Structured Markdown reports — diagnostic table, fallacy scan, decision audit, data reading, debate prep |
| Language | Chinese-first content; works with English input and output |
| Progressive loading | Reference files are read only when the matching scenario fires, keeping context lean |
| Version | 2.0.0 |
| License | MIT |

**Cross-skill linkages** (optional, if you have them installed):

- `mu-pyramid-principle` — critical thinking deconstructs the problem, pyramid principle restructures the expression
- `mu-humanizer-minesweeping` — strips the AI flavor out of the resulting text

---

### 🛠️ Quick Start

**1. Install** — clone into your skills directory

```bash
git clone https://github.com/muippt/mu-critical-thinking.git ~/.claude/skills/mu-critical-thinking
```

> Using a different agent? Just drop the folder wherever your tool loads skills from. Project-level works too: `.claude/skills/mu-critical-thinking`.

**2. Verify** — restart your agent and confirm the skill is picked up

```
List my available skills
```

**3. Run** — paste something and let it work

```
Paste any proposal, report, or claim → automatic 12-dimension diagnostic report
```

Or invoke a specific workflow:

```
Scan this for logical fallacies: "Every major company is doing this, so we should too — if we don't, we'll fall behind and eventually lose the market entirely."
```

```
Audit this decision: we're going to double the team size next quarter to hit the roadmap.
```

```
Train me with Socratic questions on: remote work lowers team productivity.
```

---

### 🔒 Security & Privacy

- **Fully local** — the skill is plain Markdown read by your agent. Nothing is installed, nothing runs.
- **Zero network calls** — no API endpoints, no external services, no remote fetches at any point.
- **Zero telemetry** — no usage tracking, no analytics, no phone-home. There is no code that *could* collect anything.
- **Zero dependencies** — no npm, pip, or third-party packages, so no supply-chain surface.
- **Your text stays where your agent is** — the skill adds no storage, no logging, and no persistence of the arguments you analyze.
- **Fully auditable** — 5 Markdown files, all human-readable. Read the whole thing in fifteen minutes.
- **No credentials required** — no API keys, tokens, or accounts.
- **Judges arguments, not people** — an explicit rule prohibits moral verdicts on positions; the skill evaluates reasoning quality only.

---

### ⭐ Star History

If this helps you catch one bad argument before it becomes a bad decision, a star would mean a lot.

[![Star History Chart](assets/star-history.png)](https://www.star-history.com/?repos=muippt%2Fmu-critical-thinking&type=date)

> Twelve dimensions, twelve fallacies, seven data traps — turning "something feels off" into "here's exactly what's wrong, and here's how to fix it."

---

### 👤 About the Author

🎓 Signatory Author of Tsinghua University Press / 2026 Dangdang Influential Author / AI & Large Model Business HR Specialist at a Leading Tech Company / National Level-1 HR Manager / Level-2 Psychological Counselor / Self-taught Designer

📚 Author of [*Visual Team Management*](https://item.m.jd.com/product/14547345.html). Clients include ByteDance, Tencent, Baidu, China Mobile, SMG, BOE…

💡 [WeChat Official Account](https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/YLtXENt_7WzO2DgJCFUtPA) / [Xiaohongshu](https://xhslink.com/m/ESxtgUNMdl): muippt

🧰 More skills: [mu-skill-hub](https://muippt.github.io/mu-skill-hub/) · [GitHub](https://github.com/muippt)

---

### 📄 License & Acknowledgments

[MIT](LICENSE) © 2025 muippt

**Acknowledgments**

- ***Asking the Right Questions: A Guide to Critical Thinking*** by **M. Neil Browne** and **Stuart M. Keeley** — the methodological foundation of this project. The 12-dimension assessment framework, the descriptive vs prescriptive issue distinction, the value/descriptive assumption analysis, and the rival-causes discipline all derive from their work. This skill is an operational adaptation for workplace scenarios; the original book remains the canonical source and is well worth reading in full.
- The classical Socratic method, for the progressive questioning model.
- The evidence-based practice community, for the evidence hierarchy that informs the 7-tier pyramid.
- Everyone who filed an issue, asked an uncomfortable question, or argued back. That's the whole point.

> Note: Much of this project was co-created with AI assistance. If you believe your work has been used without proper attribution, please open an issue.
