model analysis workflow risk: low
Adaptive Multi-Tier Thinking Framework
The prompt requires the model to follow a structured Adaptive Thinking Framework with sections for perception adjustment, initial docking, problem exploration, multi-hypothesis gen…
PROMPT
**Adaptive Thinking Framework (Integrated Version)** This framework has the user’s “Standard—Borrow Wisdom—Review” three-tier quality control method embedded within it and must not be executed by skipping any steps. **Zero: Adaptive Perception Engine (Full-Course Scheduling Layer)** Dynamically adjusts the execution depth of every subsequent section based on the following factors: · Complexity of the problem · Stakes and weight of the matter · Time urgency · Available effective information · User’s explicit needs · Contextual characteristics (technical vs. non-technical, emotional vs. rational, etc.) This engine simultaneously determines the degree of explicitness of the “three-tier method” in all sections below — deep, detailed expansion for complex problems; micro-scale execution for simple problems. --- **One: Initial Docking Section** **Execution Actions:** 1. Clearly restate the user’s input in your own words 2. Form a preliminary understanding 3. Consider the macro background and context 4. Sort out known information and unknown elements 5. Reflect on the user’s potential underlying motivations 6. Associate relevant knowledge-base content 7. Identify potential points of ambiguity **[First Tier: Upward Inquiry — Set Standards]** While performing the above actions, the following meta-thinking **must** be completed: “For this user input, what standards should a ‘good response’ meet?” **Operational Key Points:** · Perform a superior-level reframing of the problem: e.g., if the user asks “how to learn,” first think “what truly counts as having mastered it.” · Capture the ultimate standards of the field rather than scattered techniques. · Treat this standard as the North Star metric for all subsequent sections. --- **Two: Problem Space Exploration Section** **Execution Actions:** 1. Break the problem down into its core components 2. Clarify explicit and implicit requirements 3. Consider constraints and limiting factors 4. Define the standards and format a qualified response should have 5. Map out the required knowledge scope **[First Tier: Upward Inquiry — Set Standards (Deepened)]** While performing the above actions, the following refinement **must** be completed: “Translate the superior-level standard into verifiable response-quality indicators.” **Operational Key Points:** · Decompose the “good response” standard defined in the Initial Docking section into checkable items (e.g., accuracy, completeness, actionability, etc.). · These items will become the checklist for the fifth section “Testing and Validation.” --- **Three: Multi-Hypothesis Generation Section** **Execution Actions:** 1. Generate multiple possible interpretations of the user’s question 2. Consider a variety of feasible solutions and approaches 3. Explore alternative perspectives and different standpoints 4. Retain several valid, workable hypotheses simultaneously 5. Avoid prematurely locking onto a single interpretation and eliminate preconceptions **[Second Tier: Horizontal Borrowing of Wisdom — Leverage Collective Intelligence]** While performing the above actions, the following invocation **must** be completed: “In this problem domain, what thinking models, classic theories, or crystallized wisdom from predecessors can be borrowed?” **Operational Key Points:** · Deliberately retrieve 3–5 classic thinking models in the field (e.g., Charlie Munger’s mental models, First Principles, Occam’s Razor, etc.). · Extract the core essence of each model (summarized in one or two sentences). · Use these essences as scaffolding for generating hypotheses and solutions. · Think from the shoulders of giants rather than starting from zero. --- **Four: Natural Exploration Flow** **Execution Actions:** 1. Enter from the most obvious dimension 2. Discover underlying patterns and internal connections 3. Question initial assumptions and ingrained knowledge 4. Build new associations and logical chains 5. Combine new insights to revisit and refine earlier thinking 6. Gradually form deeper and more comprehensive understanding **[Second Tier: Horizontal Borrowing of Wisdom — Leverage Collective Intelligence (Deepened)]** While carrying out the above exploration flow, the following integration **must** be completed: “Use the borrowed wisdom of predecessors as clues and springboards for exploration.” **Operational Key Points:** · When “discovering patterns,” actively look for patterns that echo the borrowed models. · When “questioning assumptions,” adopt the subversive perspectives of predecessors (e.g., Copernican-style reversals). · When “building new associations,” cross-connect the essences of different models. · Let the exploration process itself become a dialogue with the greatest minds in history. --- **Five: Testing and Validation Section** **Execution Actions:** 1. Question your own assumptions 2. Verify the preliminary conclusions 3. Identif potential logical gaps and flaws [Third Tier: Inward Review — Conduct Self-Review] While performing the above actions, the following critical review dimensions must be introduced: “Use the scalpel of critical thinking to dissect your own output across four dimensions: logic, language, thinking, and philosophy.” Operational Key Points: · Logic dimension: Check whether the reasoning chain is rigorous and free of fallacies such as reversed causation, circular argumentation, or overgeneralization. · Language dimension: Check whether the expression is precise and unambiguous, with no emotional wording, vague concepts, or overpromising. · Thinking dimension: Check for blind spots, biases, or path dependence in the thinking process, and whether multi-hypothesis generation was truly executed. · Philosophy dimension: Check whether the response’s underlying assumptions can withstand scrutiny and whether its value orientation aligns with the user’s intent. Mandatory question before output: “If I had to identify the single biggest flaw or weakness in this answer, what would it be?”
REQUIRED CONTEXT
- user input
OPTIONAL CONTEXT
- problem complexity
- stakes
- time urgency
- available information
- user needs
- contextual characteristics
ROLES & RULES
- Do not execute by skipping any steps
- Clearly restate the user’s input in your own words
- Form a preliminary understanding
- Consider the macro background and context
- Sort out known information and unknown elements
- Reflect on the user’s potential underlying motivations
- Associate relevant knowledge-base content
- Identify potential points of ambiguity
- Perform a superior-level reframing of the problem
- Capture the ultimate standards of the field
- Break the problem down into its core components
- Clarify explicit and implicit requirements
- Consider constraints and limiting factors
- Define the standards and format a qualified response should have
- Map out the required knowledge scope
- Generate multiple possible interpretations of the user’s question
- Consider a variety of feasible solutions and approaches
- Explore alternative perspectives and different standpoints
- Retain several valid, workable hypotheses simultaneously
- Avoid prematurely locking onto a single interpretation
- Deliberately retrieve 3–5 classic thinking models
- Extract the core essence of each model
- Use borrowed wisdom as scaffolding for generating hypotheses
- Enter from the most obvious dimension
- Discover underlying patterns and internal connections
- Question initial assumptions and ingrained knowledge
- Build new associations and logical chains
- Combine new insights to revisit and refine earlier thinking
- Question your own assumptions
- Verify the preliminary conclusions
- Identify potential logical gaps and flaws
- Use the scalpel of critical thinking to dissect your own output across four dimensions
- Check logic dimension for rigorous reasoning
- Check language dimension for precision
- Check thinking dimension for blind spots
- Check philosophy dimension for scrutiny
- Identify the single biggest flaw or weakness
EXPECTED OUTPUT
- Format
- plain_text
SUCCESS CRITERIA
- Meet superior-level standards for a good response
- Translate standards into verifiable quality indicators
- Leverage collective intelligence from predecessors
- Conduct self-review across logic, language, thinking, and philosophy dimensions
- Align with user’s intent and withstand scrutiny
FAILURE MODES
- Skipping steps in the framework
- Failing to perform three-tier quality control
- Prematurely locking onto single interpretation
- Not borrowing 3-5 classic thinking models
- Overlooking ambiguities or biases
- Using emotional, vague, or overpromising language
CAVEATS
- Missing context
-
- Final output format or structure for the synthesized response.
- Examples of how the framework applies to simple vs. complex queries.
- Criteria for 'micro-scale execution' vs. 'deep, detailed expansion'.
- Ambiguities
-
- Execution Actions in Section Five are incomplete (only 1-3 listed, with 3 cut off as 'Identif potential logical gaps and flaws').
- Does not specify how or when to transition to final user-facing output after Section Five.
- Adaptive Perception Engine's adjustment mechanism is described but lacks concrete decision criteria or examples.
QUALITY
- OVERALL
- 0.85
- CLARITY
- 0.75
- SPECIFICITY
- 0.90
- REUSABILITY
- 0.95
- COMPLETENESS
- 0.80
IMPROVEMENT SUGGESTIONS
- Complete Execution Actions in Section Five and ensure all sections are fully fleshed out.
- Add a 'Six: Synthesis and Output' section to compile insights into a final response with clear formatting (e.g., show process then boxed answer).
- Fix typos (e.g., 'Identif' to 'Identify') and streamline dense language for better first-read clarity.
- Include 1-2 brief examples demonstrating full execution on sample inputs.
USAGE
Copy the prompt above and paste it into your AI of choice — Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, or anywhere else you're working. Replace any placeholder sections with your own context, then ask for the output.
MORE FOR MODEL
- Travel Website SEO UX CRO Auditormodelanalysis
- Multi-Dimensional 5 Whys Root Cause Guidemodelanalysis
- Lazy AI Email Detectormodelanalysis
- Visual Media Cinematic Forensics Analyzermodelanalysis
- AI Computer Vision Algorithm Analyzermodelanalysis
- Comprehensive Repository Bug Audit and Fixermodelanalysis
- Codebase Pattern Skill File Generatormodelanalysis
- DeepThinker-CA Recursive Thinking Analyzermodelanalysis
- Unified Image Style Extractormodelanalysis
- Bug Risk Analyst for Code Changesmodelanalysis