--- name: ultra-think description: "Deep analysis with adversarial reasoning — Evidence-First + Multi-Perspective + Steel-Man + Pre-Mortem + Sensitivity. Produces a recommendation with confidence bounds." runtime: all mcp_tools_required: - ask.question cli_fallback: "ask" --- # ultra-think — Phase 3.6 Reasoning harness for complex decisions / diagnostics / architecture calls. Enforces Evidence-First labelling and adversarial stress-tests before issuing a recommendation with explicit confidence. ## Workflow ### Step 1 — Scope Check If the problem is ambiguous / underspecified, ask up to **3** clarifying questions via `ask.question` (fallback: `AskUserQuestion` / CLI menu). If the problem is simple, **skip the framework**, answer concisely, and mark downstream steps `completed` with note `"skipped: simple answer path"`. ### Step 2 — Evidence Gathering Every factual claim about tech/API/best-practices must be verified via: - Repo source (Read/Grep) - Official docs (Context7 MCP: `mcp__context7__query-docs`) - Community (Exa MCP: `mcp__exa__web_search_exa`) - Web search (fallback) Label each assertion: - **Fact** — verified, cite source (URL / file path) - **Inference** — deduced from facts (show the derivation chain) - **Speculation** — unverified; list verification steps the user can run **Iron law**: never trade accuracy for speed. Wrong-with-confidence > "I don't know + here's how to check". ### Step 3 — Multi-Perspective Analysis Generate **≥3 distinct approaches**. For each, apply whichever lenses are relevant: - **Technical** — feasibility, scalability, security, maintainability - **Business** — value, cost, time-to-market, competitive advantage - **User** — needs, experience, edge cases, accessibility - **System** — integration, dependencies, emergent behaviors ### Step 4 — Adversarial Stress-Testing Apply all four techniques: | Technique | Question | |-----------|----------| | **Steel Man** | For the option you're inclined to REJECT, build its strongest possible case. What do you discover? | | **Pre-Mortem** | Assume the recommended option has failed in 6 months. List the 3 most likely causes. | | **Sensitivity** | Which single assumption, if wrong, would reverse your recommendation? | | **Second-Order** | What new problems does the recommendation create 6-12 months out? | ### Step 5 — Synthesis Recommendation with quantified confidence (0-100%) and explicit uncertainty bounds. ## Output Structure (adapt to problem type) ### Problem Statement 1-2 sentences: core decision + key constraints. ### Analysis Deep analysis using relevant lenses from Step 3. ### Options Comparison (skip for diagnostic/investigative problems) | Criterion | Weight | Option A | Option B | Option C | |-----------|-------:|----------|----------|----------| Quantified where possible. ### Adversarial Findings - **Strongest counter-argument** (steel man for rejected option) - **Pre-mortem top risk** (most likely failure + mitigation) - **Assumption sensitivity** (load-bearing assumption) ### Recommendation - **Choice**: