critical-thinking

Audit the reasoning of any document or argument — a memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, or the user's own draft — and return its skeleton: claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, with every finding anchored to exact quoted text. Runs a commit-first coaching loop that asks for the user's own judgment before revealing the audit, tracks their recurring blind spots in a persistent reasoning profile, and turns every audit into a rep that sharpens the user's thinking instead of replacing it. Use this skill whenever the user wants reasoning examined — "audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft", "what's wrong with this reasoning" — in any language (e.g. Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "đánh giá đề xuất này giúp tôi", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"; Spanish "analiza los argumentos de esta propuesta"; Chinese "帮我审一下这份提案的论证"; Japanese "この提案の論理をチェックして"; French "analyse les failles de ce raisonnement"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also trigger when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their thinking progress / reasoning profile. (Company-level strategic bets with a full analysis belong to strategy-board; learning a new topic through dialogue belongs to socratic-questor — this skill leads when the question is whether a specific piece of reasoning holds up, and it is the daily-driver for document-level judgment calls.)