Structured Reasoning (ADI Cycle)

Reason through problems by generating competing hypotheses, verifying them against constraints, gathering evidence, and presenting a comparison for the user to decide.

Based on the ADI reasoning cycle: Abduction (generate options) -> Deduction (verify logic) -> Induction (gather evidence) -> Decision (user picks).

When to Use This

• Architectural decisions with long-term consequences
• Multiple viable approaches that need systematic comparison
• Decisions that benefit from an auditable reasoning trail
• Problems where anchoring on the first idea is a risk

When NOT to Use This

• Quick fixes with obvious solutions (just do the work)
• Easily reversible decisions (just try it)
• Open-ended uncertainty without clear options (use /sc-socratic instead)
• Pure implementation tasks (use /sc-work)

Core Principle: Transformer Mandate

You generate options with evidence. The human decides.

Do not select winners autonomously. Present the comparison, surface the trade-offs, and wait for the user to choose.

The ADI Cycle

Each phase is a conversational turn. The user drives transitions — you don't auto-advance through all phases in one response.

Phase 1: Abduction (Generate Hypotheses)

Generate 3-5 competing approaches. Resist anchoring on the first idea that seems reasonable.

Requirements:

• At least one conservative option (safe, proven, lower risk)
• At least one radical option (novel, higher potential, less proven)
• Each hypothesis states: what it is, key assumptions, and where it applies (scope)
• Classify each as system (code/architecture) or process (methodology/workflow)

Anti-anchoring check: Before generating, ask yourself — am I just listing variations of the same idea? If yes, force at least one genuinely different approach.

Output format:

## Hypotheses

### H1: [Name] (conservative)
**Approach**: [What and how]
**Assumptions**: [What must be true]
**Scope**: [Where this applies]

### H2: [Name]
...

### H3: [Name] (radical)
...

After presenting hypotheses, ask the user:

• Are any missing? Should we add one?
• Should we kill any before going deeper?
• Ready to verify?

Phase 2: Deduction (Verify Logic)

Check each surviving hypothesis against constraints. Kill the ones that don't hold up.

For each hypothesis, check:

1. Logical consistency — Does the approach actually solve the stated problem?
2. Constraint compatibility — Does it fit within known technical constraints (existing stack, team skills, timeline)?
3. Type correctness — Does the solution shape match the problem shape? (e.g., proposing a caching solution for a data modeling problem)

Verdicts:

• PASS — Logically sound, survives to evidence gathering
• FAIL — Contradicts constraints or logic. Document why and drop it
• REFINE — Has potential but needs adjustment. Modify and re-check

Output format:

## Verification Results

### H1: [Name] — PASS
**Logic**: [Why it holds up]
**Constraints**: [Compatible because...]

### H2: [Name] — FAIL
**Reason**: [Specific contradiction or logical flaw]

### H3: [Name] — REFINE
**Issue**: [What needs adjustment]
**Refined**: [Updated approach]

After verification, confirm with user: These hypotheses survived. Ready to gather evidence?

Phase 3: Induction (Gather Evidence)

Collect actual evidence for each surviving hypothesis. This is where you do real work — read code, run searches, check docs, analyze feasibility.

Evidence quality tiers:

| Tier | Source | Confidence | |------|--------|------------| | Internal test | Run code, benchmark, prototype in this project | High | | Internal analysis | Read this codebase, check compatibility | Medium-High | | Similar context | Evidence from similar project/stack | Medium | | External docs | Library docs, blog posts, general advice | Low-Medium |

Weakest Link Principle (WLNK): A hypothesis is only as strong as its weakest piece of evidence. Don't average — report the floor.

For each hypothesis, gather:

• Best available evidence (prefer internal over external)
• The weakest link — what's the least certain thing?
• Known unknowns — what couldn't you verify?

Use Agent tools to parallelize evidence gathering when hypotheses are independent.

Output format:

## Evidence

### H1: [Name]
**Evidence**: [What you found, with sources]
**Weakest link**: [Least certain element]
**Unknowns**: [What couldn't be verified]
**Confidence floor**: [high / medium / low]

### H3: [Name]
...

Phase 4: Decision (User Decides)

Present a comparison table and let the user choose.

Output format:

## Comparison

| | H1: [Name] | H3: [Name] |
|---|---|---|
| **Approach** | ... | ... |
| **Evidence** | ... | ... |
| **Weakest link** | ... | ... |
| **Confidence** | ... | ... |
| **Trade-offs** | ... | ... |
| **Reversibility** | ... | ... |

## Recommendation

[Your analysis of which is stronger and why — but the user decides]

## What would you like to go with?

After the user decides, document the rationale:

## Decision Record

**Problem**: [Original question]
**Chosen**: [H-name] — [one-line summary]
**Rationale**: [Why this won, citing evidence]
**Rejected**: [Other hypotheses and why they lost]
**Revisit when**: [Conditions that should trigger re-evaluation]

Persistence

Save reasoning artifacts to .agent-history/reasoning/<slug>/:

.agent-history/reasoning/<slug>/
  hypotheses.md    # Phase 1 output
  verification.md  # Phase 2 output
  evidence.md      # Phase 3 output
  decision.md      # Phase 4 output (if reached)

Create the directory at the start of Phase 1. Write each file as its phase completes.

Slug generation: Lowercase the problem statement, take first 4-5 words, join with hyphens. Example: "how should we handle caching" -> how-should-we-handle-caching

Execution

1. Parse the problem — Read $ARGUMENTS. If empty, ask what decision needs reasoning.

2. Gather context — Use Read, Grep, Glob to understand the relevant codebase before generating hypotheses. Don't hypothesize in a vacuum.

3. Run Phase 1 — Generate hypotheses, present to user, wait for confirmation.

4. Run Phase 2-4 on user request — Each phase is a separate turn. Don't auto-advance. The user says "verify" or "gather evidence" or "decide" to move forward.

5. Early exit is fine — If the answer becomes obvious during Phase 1 or 2, say so. The framework serves the decision, not the other way around.

Shortcuts

• /sc-hypothesize [problem] — Start from Phase 1
• "verify" / "check logic" — Run Phase 2 on existing hypotheses
• "evidence" / "test these" — Run Phase 3
• "decide" / "compare" — Run Phase 4
• "add hypothesis: [idea]" — Add a user-supplied hypothesis at any point
• "kill H2" — Remove a hypothesis from consideration

Related Commands

| Situation | Command | |-----------|---------| | Open-ended uncertainty, no clear options | /sc-socratic | | Quick implementation after deciding | /sc-work | | Challenge a conclusion adversarially | /sc-challenge-assumptions | | Full feature workflow with architecture | /sc-workflow |