Think-Reframe - Problem Redefinition Before Problem Solving

Takes a stated problem and explores alternative framings of it through parallel reframers, each applying a different reframing lens in isolation. The output is a set of candidate reframings with an explicit recommendation: keep the original framing, adopt a specific reframing, or explore further. Sits upstream of /think-brainstorm in the natural reasoning pipeline — most wasted engineering effort goes into solving well-defined versions of the wrong problem, and this skill is the dedicated defense against that failure mode.

This skill produces no tangible artifacts. It is a consultant, not an implementer. No code, no tickets, no commits. The output is a structured reframing report that the user can act on by refining their problem statement or proceeding with the original.

Roles

Judge (you, running this skill):

• Capture the stated problem in a written brief
• Extract stated and unstated premises (lightweight reconnaissance, not confrontation)
• Choose appropriate reframing lenses
• Spawn reframers and synthesize the alternatives into a report with a recommendation

Reframers: Each receives a specific lens (problem-vs-symptom, scope-shift, stakeholder-shift, level-of-abstraction, time-horizon, inversion, category-shift, constraints-shift) and produces a reframed problem statement in isolation.

Workflow

1. Receive the Problem

The problem may arrive as:

• Conversation context — summarize it back, confirm
• A document — read the file (design doc, ticket, problem statement)
• Fresh user input — capture it verbatim

Produce a written brief of the stated problem as you understand it. Reframers operate on this brief. Ambiguity here corrupts everything downstream — if the problem is so vague that reframing lenses can't bite, refine the problem statement with the user before proceeding.

2. Extract Premises

Lighter than /think-brainstorm's assumption-validation phase. This is reconnaissance — you're mapping what the problem presumes so reframers have the context to challenge those presumptions through their lenses. You are not validating these premises with the user (that's a heavier exercise, and the reframers themselves will challenge them).

Identify:

• Stated premises — what the problem statement explicitly asserts
• Unstated premises — what the problem statement assumes without saying
• Implied scope — what the problem is about, what it's not about
• Implied category — is this framed as technical / people / process / etc.?
• Implied stakeholders — whose problem is this?
• Implied time horizon — immediate, medium, long-term?

This snapshot is passed to reframers as context. The reframers' job is to challenge and shift these.

3. Choose Reframing Lenses

Select 3-6 lenses from the palette based on the problem's shape. The orchestrator decides autonomously.

Available lenses:

• problem-vs-symptom — is the stated problem a symptom of something upstream?
• scope-shift — narrower or wider framing
• stakeholder-shift — different stakeholders' perspectives
• level-of-abstraction — more general or more specific
• time-horizon — 1 week, 6 months, 5 years
• inversion — what new problems would emerge if this were solved?
• category-shift — is this really a technical / people / process / spec / business / incentive / communication problem?
• constraints-shift — which "fixed" constraints are actually negotiable?

Selection heuristics:

• Problem described as "we need X" → include stakeholder-shift (is X what different parties need?), category-shift (is "we need X" a technical problem, or a prioritization problem?)
• Problem described as urgent → include time-horizon (different horizons yield different interventions)
• Problem described with a hard constraint → include constraints-shift
• Problem described with a clean story → include problem-vs-symptom (clean stories often hide upstream causes)
• Problem that feels stuck → include inversion and level-of-abstraction (both break out of the current framing)

Drop lenses that don't fit. Not every lens applies to every problem. A clearly-factored technical problem may not need category-shift; a personal productivity problem may not need stakeholder-shift. Better 3 fitted lenses than 7 forced ones.

4. Spawn Reframers (Parallel, Isolated)

Spawn one THK - Reframer agent per chosen lens, in parallel. Each receives:

• The written problem brief (from step 1)
• Its assigned lens
• The premise snapshot (from step 2)
• Instruction to produce a reframed problem statement with an explicit "what changed" diff and "when this framing applies" note

No cross-talk between reframers. NGT principle — independent reframing first, synthesis second. Isolated reframers produce more distinct alternatives; coordinated ones anchor on each other.

Collect all reframings.

5. Synthesize

Combine the isolated reframings into a coherent report:

5a. Assess meaning-shift per reframing. For each reframing, judge how much it materially shifts the problem's meaning. A reframing that just restates the problem in different words is not productive. A reframing that would lead to a different intervention is productive. Classify each as:

• Materially shifts meaning — adopting this reframe would lead to a meaningfully different solution
• Refines the framing — sharpens the original without replacing it
• No meaningful shift — the original framing holds up through this lens (this is still valuable calibration)

5b. Look for composite framings. Sometimes two lenses compound — e.g., "stakeholder-shift to operator + time-horizon 5 years" = "what does this look like to the operator who has to maintain this for 5 years?" These composite framings can be sharper than either parent. Only include if the composition is genuinely illuminating — don't manufacture them.

5c. Identify standout reframings. The 1-3 reframings that most change what solving the problem would mean. These are the recommendations to seriously consider.

5d. Form an orchestrator recommendation. One of:

• Keep original framing — reframings refined the framing but didn't materially shift it; the original is sound
• Adopt reframing X — one reframing materially shifts the problem in a way the user should consider adopting
• Further explore — multiple reframings materially shift the problem; the user should pick among them rather than receive a single recommendation from this skill

6. Report

Final report format:

## Reframing Report

**Stated problem:** [one-line summary of original framing]
**Lenses applied:** [list]

### Original Framing

[Restate the problem as originally stated, with the premise snapshot
making implicit assumptions visible. This is the baseline each reframing
is measured against.]

### Standout Reframings

[1-3 reframings that materially shift the problem's meaning. For each:]

#### [lens name]

**Reframed:** [concrete alternative problem statement]

**What changed:** [explicit diff from the original framing]

**When this framing applies:** [conditions under which this reframing
is most useful]

### Composite Framings

[Optional. Reframings the orchestrator constructed by combining lenses.
Only include if the composition is genuinely illuminating.]

### Refinements (Not Materially Shifting)

[Reframings that sharpened the framing without replacing it. Listed
briefly for completeness.]

### Where the Original Framing Held Up

[Honest reporting: which lenses produced "no meaningful shift." This is
calibration signal — it tells the user which dimensions of their framing
are robust.]

### Recommendation

One of:
- **Keep original framing** — no reframing materially shifted the problem; proceed as framed
- **Adopt reframing X** — reframing X materially shifts the problem in a way worth adopting
- **Further explore** — multiple