Facilitated partner-led thinking session for problems that are NOT initiatives yet — strategy questions, org decisions, "should we enter X" — where there is no metric gap to pipeline. The PM leads, Claude structures and executes. Use for "давай подумаем стратегически", "помоги продумать сложный вопрос", "стоит ли нам…", "как подойти к реорганизации", "think this through with me", "у меня нет метрики, но есть проблема". When the problem IS a metric gap — that's /hypotheses, not this.
Scanned 8/31/2026
Install to Claude Code
npx -y skills add lenar-amirov/product-pipeline-public --skill deep-think --agent claude-codeInstalls into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Deep Think?
Add the live security badge to your README — it updates automatically with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/lenar-amirov-deep-think)More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page.
---
name: deep-think
description: Facilitated partner-led thinking session for problems that are NOT initiatives yet — strategy questions, org decisions, "should we enter X" — where there is no metric gap to pipeline. The PM leads, Claude structures and executes. Use for "давай подумаем стратегически", "помоги продумать сложный вопрос", "стоит ли нам…", "как подойти к реорганизации", "think this through with me", "у меня нет метрики, но есть проблема". When the problem IS a metric gap — that's /hypotheses, not this.
---
# Deep Think — `/deep-think`
A facilitated thinking session for the questions the pipeline can't hold:
no metric, no funnel, often no product surface — strategy bets, org
design, build-vs-buy, "is this worth an initiative at all". The PM is the
partner (owns direction, makes calls); Claude is the associate (structures,
drafts, stress-tests). One session, one page of output.
## How to run it
1. **Frame together** — restate the question until the PM confirms it's THE
question; name the decision it feeds and who makes it. (For briefs handed
down by a stakeholder, `ambiguity-resolver` does this framing.)
2. **Structure** — build the tree with `problem-structuring` (MECE applies
to strategy questions too; the root is the decision, not a metric).
Present the structure, let the PM cut or reweight branches — their
context beats symmetric completeness.
3. **Work the priority branches** — for each surviving branch: what we know
(typed honestly — most of it will be INFERRED/AMBIGUOUS here, say so),
what would change the answer, cheapest way to find out.
4. **Synthesize answer-first** — pyramid: recommendation → 2-3 supporting
arguments → evidence and open risks. Prose per writing-style.md.
5. **Land it** — one page to whatever file the PM names (or in-chat).
Then the bridge, always offered, never forced:
- the question turned out to be a metric gap → "превратить в инициативу?"
(Frame + `/hypotheses` — the tree's branches seed the hypotheses);
- it stays strategic → offer to bank durable conclusions in
`knowledge/facts.json` so future initiatives inherit them.
## Boundaries
- PM decides at every fork; Claude proposes, never railroads.
- No fake rigor: strategy sessions run on INFERRED evidence — type it,
don't dress it as analysis.
- If halfway in it's clearly an initiative (metric found, segment named) —
say so and switch to the pipeline instead of finishing the ceremony.
Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.
No comments yet. Be the first to comment!