Skip to main content
Prompts Adaptive Multi-Tier Thinking Framework

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

  1. Do not execute by skipping any steps
  2. Clearly restate the user’s input in your own words
  3. Form a preliminary understanding
  4. Consider the macro background and context
  5. Sort out known information and unknown elements
  6. Reflect on the user’s potential underlying motivations
  7. Associate relevant knowledge-base content
  8. Identify potential points of ambiguity
  9. Perform a superior-level reframing of the problem
  10. Capture the ultimate standards of the field
  11. Break the problem down into its core components
  12. Clarify explicit and implicit requirements
  13. Consider constraints and limiting factors
  14. Define the standards and format a qualified response should have
  15. Map out the required knowledge scope
  16. Generate multiple possible interpretations of the user’s question
  17. Consider a variety of feasible solutions and approaches
  18. Explore alternative perspectives and different standpoints
  19. Retain several valid, workable hypotheses simultaneously
  20. Avoid prematurely locking onto a single interpretation
  21. Deliberately retrieve 3–5 classic thinking models
  22. Extract the core essence of each model
  23. Use borrowed wisdom as scaffolding for generating hypotheses
  24. Enter from the most obvious dimension
  25. Discover underlying patterns and internal connections
  26. Question initial assumptions and ingrained knowledge
  27. Build new associations and logical chains
  28. Combine new insights to revisit and refine earlier thinking
  29. Question your own assumptions
  30. Verify the preliminary conclusions
  31. Identify potential logical gaps and flaws
  32. Use the scalpel of critical thinking to dissect your own output across four dimensions
  33. Check logic dimension for rigorous reasoning
  34. Check language dimension for precision
  35. Check thinking dimension for blind spots
  36. Check philosophy dimension for scrutiny
  37. 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