Initial commit

skills/sequential-thinking/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,118 @@
+# Sequential Thinking Skill
+
+Agent skill for systematic problem-solving through iterative reasoning with revision and branching capabilities.
+
+## What This Skill Does
+
+Enables Claude to break down complex problems into sequential thought steps, revise conclusions when needed, and explore alternative solution paths—all while maintaining context throughout the reasoning process.
+
+## Installation
+
+This skill requires the Sequential Thinking MCP server to be installed and configured in your Claude Desktop or Claude Code environment.
+
+### Step 1: Install MCP Server
+
+Choose one of the following methods:
+
+#### NPX (Recommended)
+
+Add to your `claude_desktop_config.json` or MCP settings:
+
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "sequential-thinking": {
+      "command": "npx",
+      "args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking"]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+#### Docker
+
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "sequentialthinking": {
+      "command": "docker",
+      "args": ["run", "--rm", "-i", "mcp/sequentialthinking"]
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+### Step 2: Add Skill to Project
+
+Copy this skill folder to your project's `.claude/skills/` directory:
+
+```bash
+cp -r sequential-thinking /path/to/your/project/.claude/skills/
+```
+
+### Step 3: Verify Installation
+
+Restart Claude and check that the `mcp__reasoning__sequentialthinking` tool is available.
+
+## Usage
+
+Once installed, Claude will automatically use this skill when:
+- Facing complex multi-step problems
+- Needing to revise earlier conclusions
+- Exploring alternative solution approaches
+- Working through uncertain or evolving scopes
+
+You can also explicitly request it:
+```
+"Let's think through this step-by-step using sequential thinking"
+```
+
+## Configuration
+
+### Disable Logging (Optional)
+
+To suppress thought information logging, set environment variable:
+
+```json
+{
+  "mcpServers": {
+    "sequential-thinking": {
+      "command": "npx",
+      "args": ["-y", "@modelcontextprotocol/server-sequential-thinking"],
+      "env": {
+        "DISABLE_THOUGHT_LOGGING": "true"
+      }
+    }
+  }
+}
+```
+
+## Skill Structure
+
+```
+sequential-thinking/
+├── SKILL.md              # Main skill definition
+├── README.md             # This file
+└── references/
+    ├── advanced.md       # Revision and branching patterns
+    └── examples.md       # Real-world use cases
+```
+
+## When Claude Uses This Skill
+
+The skill activates for:
+- **Complex analysis**: Breaking down multi-faceted problems
+- **Design decisions**: Exploring and comparing alternatives
+- **Debugging**: Systematic investigation with course correction
+- **Planning**: Multi-stage project planning with evolving scope
+- **Architecture**: Evaluating trade-offs across approaches
+
+## Learn More
+
+- [MCP Sequential Thinking Server](https://github.com/modelcontextprotocol/servers/tree/main/src/sequentialthinking)
+- [Model Context Protocol](https://modelcontextprotocol.io/)
+- [Agent Skills Documentation](https://docs.claude.com/en/docs/agents-and-tools/agent-skills/overview.md)
+
+## License
+
+MIT

skills/sequential-thinking/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+---
+name: sequential-thinking
+description: Use when complex problems require systematic step-by-step reasoning with ability to revise thoughts, branch into alternative approaches, or dynamically adjust scope. Ideal for multi-stage analysis, design planning, problem decomposition, or tasks with initially unclear scope.
+license: MIT
+---
+
+# Sequential Thinking
+
+Enables structured problem-solving through iterative reasoning with revision and branching capabilities.
+
+## Core Capabilities
+
+- **Iterative reasoning**: Break complex problems into sequential thought steps
+- **Dynamic scope**: Adjust total thought count as understanding evolves
+- **Revision tracking**: Reconsider and modify previous conclusions
+- **Branch exploration**: Explore alternative reasoning paths from any point
+- **Maintained context**: Keep track of reasoning chain throughout analysis
+
+## When to Use
+
+Use `mcp__reasoning__sequentialthinking` when:
+- Problem requires multiple interconnected reasoning steps
+- Initial scope or approach is uncertain
+- Need to filter through complexity to find core issues
+- May need to backtrack or revise earlier conclusions
+- Want to explore alternative solution paths
+
+**Don't use for**: Simple queries, direct facts, or single-step tasks.
+
+## Basic Usage
+
+The MCP tool `mcp__reasoning__sequentialthinking` accepts these parameters:
+
+### Required Parameters
+
+- `thought` (string): Current reasoning step
+- `nextThoughtNeeded` (boolean): Whether more reasoning is needed
+- `thoughtNumber` (integer): Current step number (starts at 1)
+- `totalThoughts` (integer): Estimated total steps needed
+
+### Optional Parameters
+
+- `isRevision` (boolean): Indicates this revises previous thinking
+- `revisesThought` (integer): Which thought number is being reconsidered
+- `branchFromThought` (integer): Thought number to branch from
+- `branchId` (string): Identifier for this reasoning branch
+
+## Workflow Pattern
+
+```
+1. Start with initial thought (thoughtNumber: 1)
+2. For each step:
+   - Express current reasoning in `thought`
+   - Estimate remaining work via `totalThoughts` (adjust dynamically)
+   - Set `nextThoughtNeeded: true` to continue
+3. When reaching conclusion, set `nextThoughtNeeded: false`
+```
+
+## Simple Example
+
+```typescript
+// First thought
+{
+  thought: "Problem involves optimizing database queries. Need to identify bottlenecks first.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Second thought
+{
+  thought: "Analyzing query patterns reveals N+1 problem in user fetches.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 6, // Adjusted scope
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// ... continue until done
+```
+
+## Advanced Features
+
+For revision patterns, branching strategies, and complex workflows, see:
+- [Advanced Usage](references/advanced.md) - Revision and branching patterns
+- [Examples](references/examples.md) - Real-world use cases
+
+## Tips
+
+- Start with rough estimate for `totalThoughts`, refine as you progress
+- Use revision when assumptions prove incorrect
+- Branch when multiple approaches seem viable
+- Express uncertainty explicitly in thoughts
+- Adjust scope freely - accuracy matters less than progress visibility

skills/sequential-thinking/references/advanced.md

@@ -0,0 +1,122 @@
+# Advanced Usage: Revision and Branching
+
+## Revising Previous Thoughts
+
+When a thought proves incorrect or incomplete, use revision to correct the reasoning chain:
+
+```typescript
+{
+  thought: "Actually, the N+1 problem isn't the bottleneck—profiling shows the issue is missing indexes on join columns.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  isRevision: true,
+  revisesThought: 2, // References thought #2
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+```
+
+**When to revise**:
+- New evidence contradicts earlier conclusions
+- Assumptions prove incorrect
+- Scope was misunderstood
+- Need to correct factual errors
+
+## Branching Into Alternatives
+
+Explore different solution paths by branching from a specific thought:
+
+```typescript
+// Main path (thoughts 1-3)
+{
+  thought: "Could optimize with caching or database indexes.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch A: Explore caching
+{
+  thought: "If we implement Redis caching, we'd need to handle cache invalidation.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchFromThought: 3,
+  branchId: "caching-approach",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch B: Explore indexing (alternative from thought 3)
+{
+  thought: "Adding composite index would avoid query overhead entirely.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  branchFromThought: 3,
+  branchId: "indexing-approach",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+```
+
+**When to branch**:
+- Multiple viable approaches exist
+- Need to compare trade-offs
+- Exploring contingencies
+- Testing hypotheses in parallel
+
+## Combining Revision and Branching
+
+```typescript
+// Original branch proves problematic
+{
+  thought: "The caching approach has too many edge cases for our timeline.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 8,
+  branchId: "caching-approach",
+  isRevision: true,
+  revisesThought: 4,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Return to indexing branch
+{
+  thought: "Returning to index optimization—this approach is more reliable.",
+  thoughtNumber: 7,
+  totalThoughts: 9,
+  branchId: "indexing-approach",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+```
+
+## Dynamic Scope Adjustment
+
+Freely adjust `totalThoughts` as understanding evolves:
+
+```typescript
+// Initial estimate
+{ thoughtNumber: 1, totalThoughts: 5, ... }
+
+// Complexity increases
+{ thoughtNumber: 3, totalThoughts: 8, ... }
+
+// Actually simpler than expected
+{ thoughtNumber: 5, totalThoughts: 6, ... }
+```
+
+**Purpose**: Provide progress visibility, not strict planning. The estimate guides pacing but should adapt to reality.
+
+## Session Management
+
+Each reasoning session maintains its own context. The tool tracks:
+- All thoughts in sequence
+- Revision relationships
+- Branch hierarchies
+- Current state
+
+You don't need to manually manage state—focus on expressing reasoning clearly.
+
+## Best Practices
+
+1. **Express uncertainty**: "This might be...", "Uncertain if...", "Need to verify..."
+2. **Show reasoning**: Not just conclusions, but how you arrived there
+3. **Revise freely**: Correcting course is expected and valuable
+4. **Branch decisively**: When exploring alternatives, commit to exploring each fully
+5. **Adjust scope**: Don't lock into initial estimates
+6. **Maintain clarity**: Each thought should be self-contained enough to understand in isolation

skills/sequential-thinking/references/examples.md

@@ -0,0 +1,274 @@
+# Sequential Thinking Examples
+
+## Example 1: Database Performance Problem
+
+**Context**: API endpoints timing out, need to diagnose and fix.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "API timeout reports indicate database bottleneck. Need to profile queries first.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Query logs show user profile endpoint makes 50+ queries per request. Classic N+1 pattern.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Need to implement eager loading for relationships. Checking ORM documentation for optimal approach.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 7, // Adjusted scope
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4
+{
+  thought: "ORM supports `include` for eager loading. Will need to modify 3 endpoints: /profile, /dashboard, /settings.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Implementation complete. Testing shows queries reduced from 52 to 4 per request. Response time: 2.1s → 180ms.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6, // Fewer steps than expected
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 6
+{
+  thought: "Success. Solution: eager loading eliminated N+1 queries. Next: add query monitoring to catch similar issues early.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false // Done
+}
+```
+
+## Example 2: Architecture Decision with Branching
+
+**Context**: Choosing between microservices and monolith for new project.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Need to decide architecture. Key factors: team size (5 devs), timeline (3 months), expected scale (10k users initially).",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 8,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Two viable approaches: monolith for simplicity or microservices for scalability. Need to evaluate both.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 10,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch A: Monolith approach
+{
+  thought: "Monolith pros: faster development, simpler deployment, easier debugging. Cons: potential future refactor cost.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchFromThought: 2,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "For 10k users, single server handles load easily. Deployment: single container, straightforward CI/CD.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Dev velocity high—team can ship in 3 months. Future scaling: can extract services later if needed.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  branchId: "monolith",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Branch B: Microservices approach
+{
+  thought: "Microservices pros: independent scaling, service isolation. Cons: complexity overhead, distributed systems challenges.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchFromThought: 2,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "For 5-person team: significant overhead in service coordination, API contracts, infrastructure management.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Timeline risk: 3 months insufficient for robust microservices implementation. Need distributed tracing, service mesh, etc.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  branchId: "microservices",
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Convergence
+{
+  thought: "Comparing branches: monolith clearly better fit. Small team, tight timeline, modest initial scale. Microservices overhead unjustified.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+{
+  thought: "Decision: monolith with modular design. Extract services later if specific components need independent scaling.",
+  thoughtNumber: 7,
+  totalThoughts: 7,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Example 3: Debugging with Revision
+
+**Context**: Feature works in dev, fails in production.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Payment processing works locally but fails in prod. Checking error logs.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Logs show 'Connection refused' to payment API. Likely firewall or network config issue.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 5,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Checked firewall rules—payment API port (443) is open. Must be something else.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4 - Revision
+{
+  thought: "Wait—reviewing logs more carefully. Error message includes 'certificate verify failed'. Not firewall, it's SSL/TLS issue.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  isRevision: true,
+  revisesThought: 2,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Prod environment missing intermediate CA certificates. Dev works because it uses self-signed cert with verification disabled.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 6
+{
+  thought: "Installed CA bundle on prod server. Payment processing now works. Root cause: incomplete SSL cert chain.",
+  thoughtNumber: 6,
+  totalThoughts: 6,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Example 4: Complex Feature Planning
+
+**Context**: Building real-time collaborative editing feature.
+
+```typescript
+// Thought 1
+{
+  thought: "Real-time collab editing requires: WebSocket connections, operational transformation or CRDT, conflict resolution, presence tracking.",
+  thoughtNumber: 1,
+  totalThoughts: 12,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 2
+{
+  thought: "Core decision: OT vs CRDT. OT requires central server for transform logic, CRDT enables P2P. For our use case, CRDT better.",
+  thoughtNumber: 2,
+  totalThoughts: 12,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 3
+{
+  thought: "Research CRDT libraries: Yjs (popular, mature), Automerge (good TypeScript support). Yjs has better performance benchmarks.",
+  thoughtNumber: 3,
+  totalThoughts: 14, // Scope expanding
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 4
+{
+  thought: "Architecture: Yjs + WebSocket provider + persistence layer. Client-side: Yjs doc syncs via WebSocket. Server: broadcast updates + store snapshots.",
+  thoughtNumber: 4,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// Thought 5
+{
+  thought: "Implementation phases: (1) Basic sync, (2) Presence/cursors, (3) Persistence, (4) Conflict UI. Estimate 4 weeks total.",
+  thoughtNumber: 5,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: true
+}
+
+// ... continues through implementation details
+
+// Final thought
+{
+  thought: "Plan complete. MVP: Yjs + WebSocket + Redis persistence. 4-week timeline. Main risk: scaling WebSocket connections—mitigate with load balancer sticky sessions.",
+  thoughtNumber: 14,
+  totalThoughts: 14,
+  nextThoughtNeeded: false
+}
+```
+
+## Usage Patterns Summary
+
+| Scenario | Pattern | Key Features |
+|----------|---------|--------------|
+| Linear problem-solving | Sequential thoughts | Steady progress, scope adjustment |
+| Exploring alternatives | Branching | Multiple paths from decision point |
+| Correcting mistakes | Revision | Reference earlier thought, update conclusion |
+| Complex analysis | Mixed | Combine all features as needed |
+
+## Tips for Effective Use
+
+1. **Start broad, narrow down**: Early thoughts explore problem space, later thoughts dive into specifics
+2. **Show your work**: Document reasoning process, not just conclusions
+3. **Revise when wrong**: Don't continue down incorrect path—backtrack and correct
+4. **Branch at crossroads**: When facing clear alternatives, explore each systematically
+5. **Adjust dynamically**: Change `totalThoughts` as understanding evolves
+6. **End decisively**: Final thought should summarize conclusion and next actions