First principles

First Principles

Force-question the assumptions behind a problem before jumping to solutions. Useful when conventional approaches feel stuck, when a design debate is going in circles, or when you suspect the framing of the problem is wrong.

Usage

/first-principles "<problem or question to decompose>"
/first-principles                   # decompose the current task or decision
/first-principles --fast            # condensed version: just constraints + one rebuilt solution

Behavior

Step 1 — State the problem as given

Capture the problem exactly as it was framed. If from $ARGUMENTS, use that. Otherwise, ask for a one-sentence statement.

Step 2 — Strip the solution framing

Identify and list every assumption embedded in the current framing:

These phrases are assumption flags: "we have to", "we always", "everyone does", "the system requires", "we can't change", "that's just how it works"

For each assumption, ask: "Why?" until you reach a constraint that is physically, legally, or economically non-negotiable — not just conventional.

Example:

Assumption: "We need a SQL database"
  Why? → "Because we need transactions"
  Why transactions? → "Because two tables must update together"
  Why two tables? → "Because we modeled them separately"
  Real constraint: "Atomic updates are required" (schema is not the constraint)

Step 3 — List the irreducible constraints

Write down only what is genuinely non-negotiable:

• Physical laws (latency of light, disk I/O speed)
• Hard legal / compliance requirements
• Contractual obligations
• Immovable external system interfaces

Everything else is a convention, a habit, or a past decision that can be revisited.

Step 4 — Rebuild from the constraints

Starting only from the irreducible constraints, derive a solution fresh:

"If we only knew what we must do, and had no knowledge of how it's currently done, what would we build?"

Generate 2–3 solutions that satisfy the constraints. Do not favor the conventional approach; treat it as one option among others.

For each:

• What does it give up compared to the current approach?
• What does it gain?
• What assumption does it challenge?

Step 5 — Compare and recommend

Solution	Gains	Gives up	Key assumption challenged
Current approach	Familiar, low change risk	[the thing that's stuck]	None
Option A (rebuilt)	[gain]	[tradeoff]	[assumption dropped]
Option B (rebuilt)	[gain]	[tradeoff]	[assumption dropped]

Recommend the option with the best gain-to-change-cost ratio. Flag if the current approach is actually optimal — first principles sometimes confirms the existing solution.

Step 6 — Identify what to validate first

If a rebuilt solution is recommended, name the one assumption most likely to break it:

The rebuilt solution depends on: [key assumption]
Cheapest test: [how to validate it in < 1 day]

Example

Problem as given: "Our API is too slow — we need to add a caching layer"

Assumptions stripped:
  "Add a caching layer" → assumes slowness is read-heavy and cacheable
  "The API is slow" → assumes slowness is in the API, not the client or network
  "Too slow" → what is the actual latency? What is the target?

Irreducible constraint:
  Response must arrive in < 200ms p95 for the user experience to feel instant

Rebuilt from constraints:
  Option A: Cache (assumed path) — valid if > 60% of requests are cache-hit eligible
  Option B: Profile first — instrument p95 breakdown before adding infrastructure
  Option C: Push to client — preload data at login; API slowness irrelevant for most flows

Recommendation: Option B (profile first) — the constraint is 200ms p95; we don't yet
know if the API is the bottleneck. Caching solves read latency; if the bottleneck is a
slow write or external call, caching adds complexity without fixing the problem.

Validate: Add timing logs to the 3 slowest endpoints; read results in < 1 day.

Edge Cases

• Problem is genuinely well-framed: Confirm the current approach is optimal and state why; do not invent alternatives for their own sake.
• Multiple competing problems: Decompose each separately; do not mix constraints across different problems.
• Technical decision: Focus Step 2 on architectural assumptions (not just business ones).
• Fast mode (--fast): Output only the stripped constraints and one rebuilt solution; skip the comparison table.

Token Optimization

Expected range: 300–800 tokens

Patterns used: Progressive disclosure (constraints first, solutions second), early exit (if problem is clear and well-constrained, go straight to Step 3)

No files read: This skill operates on conversation context and the stated problem; no codebase analysis unless needed to identify constraints.