# First Principles

> First-Principles Thinking Framework

- Skill: `jonely235/first-principles` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add jonely235/first-principles`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/jonely235/first-principles/raw
- Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector PASS)
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Jonely235 (https://skillmd.com/u/jonely235)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/jonely235/first-principles

---


# First-Principles Thinking Framework

## When to Use This Skill

Apply this framework when you need to think independently rather than accepting:
- Expert opinions or authority arguments
- Conventional wisdom or "common knowledge"
- Social proof or majority consensus
- Emotional appeals or charismatic rhetoric
- Historical precedent or tradition

## The First-Principles Framework

### Step 1: Identify the Question or Problem

**State the core question explicitly:**
- What are we actually trying to understand?
- What decision needs to be made?
- What truth are we seeking?

**Example**: Instead of "Should I invest in crypto?", reframe as "What determines the value of a medium of exchange?"

### Step 2: Extract All Assumptions

**List every assumption in the argument:**
- What premises are being accepted without evidence?
- What is being treated as "obvious" or "common knowledge"?
- What authorities are being appealed to?
- What emotional triggers are present?

**Assumption Detection Patterns:**
- "Everyone knows..." → Flag as social proof
- "Experts say..." → Flag as authority appeal
- "It's obvious that..." → Flag as hidden premise
- "Studies show..." → Demand methodology
- "History proves..." → Demand context

### Step 3: Strip to Fundamentals

**Question each assumption:**
- Is this assumption actually true? How do we know?
- Can we prove this from first principles?
- What evidence would falsify this?
- Is this a causal relationship or correlation?

**Fundamental Truth Categories:**
- **Logical truths**: Mathematical/logical necessities (2+2=4)
- **Empirical truths**: Observable, testable facts (water boils at 100°C at 1 atm)
- **Definitional truths**: True by definition (bachelors are unmarried)
- **Reject**: Tradition, authority, popularity, intuition

### Step 4: Reconstruct from Ground Up

**Build logical chains from proven fundamentals:**
1. Start with verified fundamental truths
2. Apply valid deductive reasoning
3. Test conclusions against empirical reality
4. Identify what follows necessarily vs. probabilistically

**Logical Validity Check:**
- Does conclusion follow necessarily from premises?
- Are there logical fallacies (ad hominem, straw man, etc.)?
- Are there missing premises or leaps in logic?
- Is the argument structurally sound?

### Step 5: Test Against Reality

**Validate with empirical evidence:**
- What predictions does this reasoning generate?
- Can we test those predictions?
- What would count as falsification?
- Are there counter-examples?

**Bayesian Updating:**
- Assign initial probability based on first-principles reasoning
- Update based on empirical evidence
- Distinguish between "proven" and "more likely than not"

### Step 6: Identify Remaining Uncertainty

**Acknowledge what we don't know:**
- What premises remain uncertain?
- What empirical evidence is missing?
- What probability ranges are reasonable?
- What would change our conclusion?

**Intellectual Honesty:**
- Distinguish between "proven" and "probable"
- Admit when evidence is insufficient
- Identify what would settle the question
- Avoid false certainty

## Common Thinking Patterns to Avoid

### Authority Worship
**Pattern**: "Expert X says Y, so Y is true"
**First-Principles Response**: Authority is irrelevant to truth. Evaluate the argument, not the source.

### Social Proof
**Pattern**: "Everyone believes X, so X is true"
**First-Principles Response**: Majority opinion proves popularity, not truth. History is full of widely-believed falsehoods.

### Tradition Appeal
**Pattern**: "We've always done X, so X is right"
**First-Principles Response**: Past practice proves nothing about present optimality. Evaluate from first principles.

### Confirmation Bias
**Pattern**: Seeking evidence that confirms existing beliefs
**First-Principles Response**: Actively seek disconfirming evidence. Ask "What would prove me wrong?"

### False Dichotomy
**Pattern**: "Either X or Y must be true"
**First-Principles Response**: Are there other options? Are X and Y mutually exclusive? Question the frame.

## Output Format

When applying this framework, structure responses as:

```
## [Core Question]

### Assumptions Identified
- [List all assumptions extracted]

### Fundamental Truths
- [List verified first principles]

### First-Principles Analysis
[Step-by-step logical reconstruction]

### Empirical Tests
[How to validate against reality]

### Remaining Uncertainty
[What we still don't know]

### Independent Conclusion
[Your conclusion based on above, not on others' opinions]
```

## Key Principles

1. **Question Everything**: No premise is accepted without justification
2. **Authority is Irrelevant**: Truth exists independent of who says it
3. **Logic Over Intuition**: Feelings are not evidence
4. **Evidence Over Assertion**: Demand proof, don't accept claims
5. **Uncertainty is Honesty**: Admit what you don't know
6. **Update Beliefs**: Change your mind when evidence demands it

## Advanced Frameworks

For complex problems, see:
- **frameworks.md**: Detailed methods (5 Whys, Socratic questioning, assumption mapping)
- **examples.md**: Concrete applications across domains

Remember: The goal is not to be contrarian, but to be correct. First-principles thinking often leads to unconventional conclusions because conventional thinking is often flawed.