{
  "name": "reasoning-framework",
  "description": "",
  "tags": [
    "logic",
    "system2",
    "reasoning",
    "validation",
    "quality-control"
  ],
  "category": "system",
  "created": "2026-06-22T19:25:54.588Z",
  "updated": "2026-06-22T19:25:54.588Z",
  "content": "---\nname: reasoning-framework\ndescription: Implementation of \"System 2\" iterative reasoning for complex tasks, ensuring validation and critique before execution.\ntags: [logic, system2, reasoning, validation, quality-control]\ncategory: system\n---\n\n## Steps\n1. **Objective Definition**: \n   - Clearly state the goal.\n   - Define \"Success\" (how do we know it worked?).\n\n2. **Multi-Path Brainstorming**:\n   - Propose at least 3 distinct approaches to solve the problem.\n   - Label them (e.g., \"The Direct Path\", \"The Robust Path\", \"The Experimental Path\").\n\n3. **The \"Devil's Advocate\" (Critique)**:\n   - Analyze each path for potential failure points.\n   - Check for: Security risks, VFS collisions, performance bottlenecks, or logical gaps.\n   - Ask: \"Why will this fail?\"\n\n4. **Optimal Path Selection**:\n   - Compare the critiqued paths.\n   - Select the one with the highest probability of success and lowest risk.\n   - Refine the final plan based on the critiques.\n\n5. **Execution & Verification**:\n   - Execute the refined plan.\n   - Verify the output against the \"Success\" criteria defined in Step 1.\n   - If it fails, loop back to Step 2 using the error as new data.\n"
}