Critical Thinking Logical Reasoning

This is a structured framework for analyzing arguments in written content like articles, reports, and transcripts. It pushes you to understand the claim before critiquing it, then walks through examining evidence, spotting logical fallacies, surfacing assumptions, and checking for internal consistency. The output format is practical: core issues, probing questions, and a bottom line for decision makers. What's refreshing is the explicit instruction to be charitable but rigorous, to apply a "so what" test before flagging minor flaws, and to acknowledge when arguments are actually sound rather than manufacturing criticism. It's calibrated for preserving signal over noise, which matters if you're reviewing content that others need to act on.

skills.sh installs: 2.4K
GitHub stars: 169
last updated: Aug 21, 2026

View on GitHub

Install

$ npx -y skills add sammcj/agentic-coding --skill critical-thinking-logical-reasoning --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Files

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:

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