1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
|
{
"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"
}
|
