first-principles-thinking

First Principles Thinking

Question inherited baggage. Rebuild only from bedrock you can defend.

How to run it with this skill: one clearly headed section per step in this order: Surface → Question → Bedrock → Rebuild → Implications.

---

Setup (run before starting)

In one short block:

1. Reconstruction target — belief, cost, design, or strategy to ground
2. Default pass — Surface → Question → Bedrock → Rebuild → Implications (state this line)

If immutable constraints (physics, law, budget) are unclear, ask at most 3 questions in one message, then proceed. Note unknowns or working guesses in plain language (no bracket tags in Setup).

---

The Steps

Surface

State the conventional answer or analogy people rely on. List loaded words or hidden comparisons ("like Uber for…").

Question

For each major assumption: Assumption: … — Why believed? (authority, analogy, experience) — What if false?

Bedrock

List fundamental truths that survive scrutiny — physics, logic identities, legal musts, documented preferences of real users, arithmetic. Label each [FUNDAMENTAL] vs [STILL ASSUMPTION].

Prefer three or more honest bedrock items when that is credible; if fewer are honest, say why in one line.

Rebuild

From only [FUNDAMENTAL] items, derive conclusions in numbered steps. No smuggled analogies; if you need a new premise, add it to Bedrock first with a tag.

Implications

So what for decisions: what changes vs the conventional path? Cost of being wrong if a tagged assumption fails.

Add a short vs convention contrast (a few bullets or a two-column mini-summary) if it clarifies the decision.

---

Execution Rules

1. Rebuild cannot cite "industry standard" as a premise unless translated into a fundamental (e.g. "buyers require SLA X because regulation Y").
2. If bedrock is too thin to rebuild, say insufficient grounding and list what evidence would fix it.
3. Avoid faux profundity; keep steps short and checkable.