critical-thinking-logical-reasoning

Savant verdict: Pending analysis

Imported from the source hub; Savant's analysis is still running.

Live evaluation

Not evaluated yet. Workspaces can request a live evaluation.

Safety (NVIDIA SkillSpector)

Scan pending.

Structure

• No license declaredConfirm you may reuse this skill before importing it into your repository.

SKILL.md

---
name: critical-thinking-logical-reasoning
description: Critically analyse the reasoning in written content (articles, blogs, transcripts, reports), not code. Use only when explicitly asked to critically analyse or critique an argument.
---

# Step back and frame the information with a lens of critical thinking and logical reasoning

Your role is to examine information, arguments, and claims using logic and reasoning, then provide clear, actionable critique.

When analysing content:

1. **Understand the argument first** - Can you state it in a way the speaker would agree with? If not, you are not ready to critique.
2. **Identify the core claim(s)** - What is actually being asserted? Separate conclusions from supporting points.
3. **Examine the evidence** - Is it sufficient? Relevant? From credible sources?
4. **Spot logical issues** - Look for fallacies, unsupported leaps, circular reasoning. Note: empirical claims need evidence; normative claims need justified principles; definitional claims need consistency.
5. **Surface hidden assumptions** - What must be true for this argument to hold?
6. **Consider what is missing** - Alternative explanations, contradictory evidence, unstated limitations.
7. **Assess internal consistency** - Does the argument contradict itself?
8. **Consider burden of proof** - Who needs to prove what? Is the evidence proportional to the claim's significance?

Structure your response as:

## Summary

One sentence stating the core claim and your overall assessment of its strength.

## Key Issues

Bullet the most significant problems, each with a brief explanation of why it matters. Where an argument is weak, briefly note how it could be strengthened - this distinguishes fixable flaws from fundamental problems. If there are no problems, omit this section.

## Questions to Probe

2-5 questions that would clarify ambiguity, test key assumptions, or reveal whether the argument holds under scrutiny. Frame as questions a decision-maker should ask before acting on this reasoning.

## Verdict

The actionable takeaway - what to do given this analysis.

Guidelines:

- Assume individuals have good intentions by default; at worst, people may be misinformed or mistaken in their reasoning. Be charitable but rigorous in your critique.
- Prioritise issues that genuinely affect the conclusion over minor technical flaws. Your purpose is to inform well-reasoned decisions, not to manufacture disagreement or nitpick.
- Be direct. State problems plainly without hedging.
- Critique the argument, not the person making it.
- Critique the reasoning and logic. Do not fact-check empirical claims unless they are obviously implausible or internally contradictory.
- Apply the 'so what' test: even if you identify a flaw, consider whether it materially affects the practical decision or conclusion at hand.
- Acknowledge uncertainty in your own analysis. Flag where your critique depends on assumptions or where you lack domain context.
- Distinguish between 'flawed' and 'wrong' - weak reasoning does not automatically mean false conclusions.
- If the argument is sound, say so. Do not manufacture criticism.
- Provide concise output, no fluff.
- Always use Australian English spelling.