RT-ICA: Reverse Thinking - Information Completeness Assessment
Purpose
This skill inserts a mandatory RT-ICA checkpoint into planning workflows. For every goal (top-level and each decomposed sub-goal), the model MUST:
- Reverse-think prerequisites from the goal
- Assess information completeness for each prerequisite
- Either BLOCK planning until missing inputs are obtained, or APPROVE with explicit assumptions
No planning, delegation, scheduling, or solution design may begin until RT-ICA has been performed on:
- The overall goal/request
- Each decomposed goal or sub-goal that could fail due to missing information
If ANY required condition is MISSING, the model MUST stop and request only the missing information.
Activation Triggers
Invoke RT-ICA when receiving ANY of:
- Spec, request, ticket, user story, PRD, architecture design, RFC
- Request to produce a plan, execution order, agent delegation, guardrails, acceptance criteria, or rollout steps
- Any multi-step engineering effort with dependencies, unknowns, constraints, or risk
Integration Points (where RT-ICA checkpoints MUST occur):
- Before creating the top-level plan
- Before delegating tasks to specialized agents (per-agent input completeness)
- Before finalizing acceptance criteria (verify testability inputs exist)
- Before defining rollout/ops steps (verify env and access inputs exist)
Definitions
| Term |
Definition |
| Goal |
A desired outcome the user wants |
| Condition |
A prerequisite that must be true to achieve the goal |
| Required Information |
Concrete data needed to confirm or satisfy a condition |
| AVAILABLE |
Explicitly present in the input material |
| DERIVABLE |
Inferred with high confidence from provided material (must show basis) |
| MISSING |
Not present and not safely inferable |
RT-ICA Procedure
Apply this procedure to each goal and sub-goal:
Step 1: Goal Reconstruction
Produce:
- Goal statement: One sentence describing the desired outcome
- Output form: What deliverable proves success (artifact, behavior, metric, deployment state)
- Scope boundaries: In-scope/out-of-scope if stated
Step 2: Reverse Prerequisite Enumeration
Work backwards from the goal to list ALL conditions required for success.
Include conditions in these categories (where applicable):
| Category |
Example Conditions |
| Functional requirements |
Features, behaviors, user flows |
| Non-functional requirements |
Latency, throughput, availability, compliance, security |
| Interfaces/Integration |
APIs, schemas, dependencies, external systems |
| Environment/Runtime |
Cloud, region, OS, language, build system |
| Data requirements |
Sources, quality, migration, retention |
| Access/Permissions |
Repos, secrets, credentials, IAM |
| Operational constraints |
SLOs, oncall, monitoring, incident response |
| Delivery constraints |
Timeline, release process, approvals |
| Verification needs |
Tests, canaries, acceptance criteria, observability |
| Risks/Failure modes |
Rollback, data loss, security exposure |
For each condition, specify:
- Condition name
- Required information to verify/satisfy it
- Why it matters (one line)
Step 3: Availability Verification
For each condition, set status:
| Status |
Evidence Required |
| AVAILABLE |
Cite exact source snippet or section name |
| DERIVABLE |
State the inference and basis |
| MISSING |
State exactly what information is needed |
Step 4: Completeness Decision
IF any condition is MISSING:
DECISION = BLOCKED
ELSE:
DECISION = APPROVED
Step 5: Action Based on Decision
IF BLOCKED:
- Do NOT plan
- Ask ONLY for missing inputs
- Structure questions by category, ordered by criticality
- Prefer multiple-choice or constrained questions when possible
- If user explicitly requests assumption-based planning:
- Proceed with explicit assumptions for each missing condition
- Include risk note per assumption
- Add validation tasks to confirm assumptions early
IF APPROVED:
- Proceed to normal planning
- Carry forward the validated condition list
- Mark DERIVABLE items as "assumptions to confirm"
- Enforce constraints as guardrails
Output Format
The model MUST produce this summary block for each goal/sub-goal:
RT-ICA SUMMARY
==============
Goal:
- [one sentence]
Success Output:
- [deliverable/observable result]
Conditions (reverse prerequisites):
1. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]
2. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]
...
Verification:
- [Condition 1]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]
- [Condition 2]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]
...
Decision:
- [APPROVED|BLOCKED]
--- IF BLOCKED ---
Missing Inputs Requested:
[Category]:
- [missing item question] (why needed)
- [missing item question] (why needed)
[Category]:
- [missing item question] (why needed)
--- IF APPROVED ---
Assumptions to Confirm (DERIVABLE only):
- [assumption] | Basis: [basis] | Validation step: [how to confirm early]
Integration with CoVe-Style Planning
Recommended sequence with RT-ICA:
A) RT-ICA on top-level goal
B) Draft plan and decomposition
C) RT-ICA on each major workstream/sub-goal
D) Assign agents with clearly bounded deliverables
E) Verification pass: cross-check plan against conditions and acceptance criteria
F) Refinement pass: resolve gaps, reduce risk, ensure ordering and guardrails
Planning Deliverables (After APPROVED)
After RT-ICA APPROVED decision, produce a plan that includes:
| Section |
Contents |
| Workstreams |
Logical groupings and ordering |
| Agent Assignment |
Which agent handles each workstream |
| Guardrails |
Safety, security, correctness, operational constraints |
| Acceptance Criteria |
Testable, measurable success conditions |
| Risk Register |
Top risks, mitigations, rollback strategy |
| Dependencies |
Internal and external dependencies |
| Verification Plan |
Tests, monitoring, canary, QA |
| Change Management |
Rollout, communications, documentation |
Guardrails
The model MUST NOT:
- Fabricate unknown inputs
- Silently assume missing requirements
- Begin planning with MISSING conditions (unless user explicitly requests assumption-based planning)
The model MUST:
- Keep missing-input questions minimal and high signal
- Prefer early validation tasks for DERIVABLE items
- Block planning when information is insufficient
Question Templates
When requesting missing inputs, use structured questions:
Environment/Infrastructure:
- "What is the target environment (prod/stage/dev), and where will this run (cloud/region/account)?"
Success Criteria:
- "What are the success metrics or acceptance criteria (latency, correctness, SLO)?"
Integration:
- "Which systems/APIs are in scope, and what are their interface contracts (schema/version)?"
Technical Constraints:
- "Are there constraints on language/framework/build tooling?"
Approvals:
- "Who owns approvals for release and security review (if required)?"
Example: RT-ICA in Action
User Request: "Build a user authentication service"
RT-ICA Summary:
RT-ICA SUMMARY
==============
Goal:
- Implement user authentication service for the application
Success Output:
- Deployed service that authenticates users and issues session tokens
Conditions (reverse prerequisites):
1. Auth protocol | Requires: OAuth2/OIDC/custom spec | Why: Determines implementation approach
2. User store | Requires: Database type, schema | Why: Persistence layer dependency
3. Session management | Requires: Token format, expiry rules | Why: Security policy compliance
4. Integration points | Requires: API consumers list | Why: Interface contract design
5. Security requirements | Requires: Compliance standards (SOC2, HIPAA) | Why: Audit requirements
6. Deployment target | Requires: Cloud/region/infra | Why: Runtime configuration
Verification:
- Auth protocol: MISSING | Need: Which protocol to implement
- User store: DERIVABLE | Basis: Project uses PostgreSQL per docker-compose.yml
- Session management: MISSING | Need: Token format and expiry policy
- Integration points: MISSING | Need: List of services calling auth
- Security requirements: MISSING | Need: Compliance requirements if any
- Deployment target: AVAILABLE | Evidence: README specifies AWS us-east-1
Decision:
- BLOCKED
Missing Inputs Requested:
Authentication Design:
- Which auth protocol: OAuth2, OIDC, or custom JWT? (determines implementation)
- Session token expiry policy? (security requirement)
Integration:
- Which services will consume this auth service? (API contract design)
Compliance:
- Are there compliance requirements (SOC2, HIPAA, etc.)? (audit scope)
Anti-Patterns
Planning without RT-ICA:
User: "Build auth service"
Model: "Here's my plan: 1. Create user table, 2. Add login endpoint..."
Problem: Assumed requirements, will likely need rework
Asking too many questions:
Model asks 20 questions about edge cases before understanding core requirements
Problem: Overwhelms user, delays progress on high-signal items
Proceeding with silent assumptions:
Model: "I'll assume OAuth2 since that's common..."
Problem: Assumption may be wrong, causes rework or security issues
Related Skills
agent-orchestration - Scientific delegation framework for orchestrator-to-agent workflows
subagent-contract - DONE/BLOCKED signaling protocol for sub-agents
Sources
Note: This skill adapts the RT-ICA (Reverse Thinking for Information Completeness Assessment) framework for planning workflows.
1---2name: rt-ica3description: Reverse Thinking - Information Completeness Assessment. Mandatory pre-planning checkpoint that blocks planning until prerequisites are verified. Use when receiving specs, PRDs, tickets, RFCs, architecture designs, or any multi-step engineering task. Integrates with CoVe-style planning pipelines. Invoke BEFORE creating plans, delegating to agents, or defining acceptance criteria.4---5
6# RT-ICA: Reverse Thinking - Information Completeness Assessment
7
8## Purpose
9
10This skill inserts a mandatory RT-ICA checkpoint into planning workflows. For every goal (top-level and each decomposed sub-goal), the model MUST:
11
121. Reverse-think prerequisites from the goal
132. Assess information completeness for each prerequisite
143. Either BLOCK planning until missing inputs are obtained, or APPROVE with explicit assumptions
15
16<core_rule>
17
18**No planning, delegation, scheduling, or solution design may begin until RT-ICA has been performed on:**
19
201. The overall goal/request
212. Each decomposed goal or sub-goal that could fail due to missing information
22
23**If ANY required condition is MISSING, the model MUST stop and request only the missing information.**
24
25</core_rule>
26
27## Activation Triggers
28
29<activation_triggers>
30
31Invoke RT-ICA when receiving ANY of:
32
33- Spec, request, ticket, user story, PRD, architecture design, RFC
34- Request to produce a plan, execution order, agent delegation, guardrails, acceptance criteria, or rollout steps
35- Any multi-step engineering effort with dependencies, unknowns, constraints, or risk
36
37**Integration Points** (where RT-ICA checkpoints MUST occur):
38
391. Before creating the top-level plan
402. Before delegating tasks to specialized agents (per-agent input completeness)
413. Before finalizing acceptance criteria (verify testability inputs exist)
424. Before defining rollout/ops steps (verify env and access inputs exist)
43
44</activation_triggers>
45
46## Definitions
47
48<definitions>
49
50| Term | Definition |
51| ------------------------ | ---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
52| **Goal** | A desired outcome the user wants |
53| **Condition** | A prerequisite that must be true to achieve the goal |
54| **Required Information** | Concrete data needed to confirm or satisfy a condition |
55| **AVAILABLE** | Explicitly present in the input material |
56| **DERIVABLE** | Inferred with high confidence from provided material (must show basis) |
57| **MISSING** | Not present and not safely inferable |
58
59</definitions>
60
61## RT-ICA Procedure
62
63Apply this procedure to each goal and sub-goal:
64
65<procedure>
66
67### Step 1: Goal Reconstruction
68
69Produce:
70
71- **Goal statement**: One sentence describing the desired outcome
72- **Output form**: What deliverable proves success (artifact, behavior, metric, deployment state)
73- **Scope boundaries**: In-scope/out-of-scope if stated
74
75### Step 2: Reverse Prerequisite Enumeration
76
77Work backwards from the goal to list ALL conditions required for success.
78
79<condition_categories>
80
81Include conditions in these categories (where applicable):
82
83| Category | Example Conditions |
84| --------------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------- |
85| Functional requirements | Features, behaviors, user flows |
86| Non-functional requirements | Latency, throughput, availability, compliance, security |
87| Interfaces/Integration | APIs, schemas, dependencies, external systems |
88| Environment/Runtime | Cloud, region, OS, language, build system |
89| Data requirements | Sources, quality, migration, retention |
90| Access/Permissions | Repos, secrets, credentials, IAM |
91| Operational constraints | SLOs, oncall, monitoring, incident response |
92| Delivery constraints | Timeline, release process, approvals |
93| Verification needs | Tests, canaries, acceptance criteria, observability |
94| Risks/Failure modes | Rollback, data loss, security exposure |
95
96</condition_categories>
97
98For each condition, specify:
99
100- **Condition name**
101- **Required information** to verify/satisfy it
102- **Why it matters** (one line)
103
104### Step 3: Availability Verification
105
106For each condition, set status:
107
108| Status | Evidence Required |
109| ------------- | ----------------------------------------- |
110| **AVAILABLE** | Cite exact source snippet or section name |
111| **DERIVABLE** | State the inference and basis |
112| **MISSING** | State exactly what information is needed |
113
114### Step 4: Completeness Decision
115
116```text
117IF any condition is MISSING:
118 DECISION = BLOCKED
119ELSE:
120 DECISION = APPROVED
121```
122
123### Step 5: Action Based on Decision
124
125<decision_actions>
126
127**IF BLOCKED:**
128
1291. Do NOT plan
1302. Ask ONLY for missing inputs
1313. Structure questions by category, ordered by criticality
1324. Prefer multiple-choice or constrained questions when possible
1335. If user explicitly requests assumption-based planning:
134 - Proceed with explicit assumptions for each missing condition
135 - Include risk note per assumption
136 - Add validation tasks to confirm assumptions early
137
138**IF APPROVED:**
139
1401. Proceed to normal planning
1412. Carry forward the validated condition list
1423. Mark DERIVABLE items as "assumptions to confirm"
1434. Enforce constraints as guardrails
144
145</decision_actions>
146
147</procedure>
148
149## Output Format
150
151<output_format>
152
153The model MUST produce this summary block for each goal/sub-goal:
154
155```text
156RT-ICA SUMMARY
157==============
158
159Goal:
160- [one sentence]
161
162Success Output:
163- [deliverable/observable result]
164
165Conditions (reverse prerequisites):
1661. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]
1672. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]
168...
169
170Verification:
171- [Condition 1]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]
172- [Condition 2]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]
173...
174
175Decision:
176- [APPROVED|BLOCKED]
177
178--- IF BLOCKED ---
179Missing Inputs Requested:
180
181[Category]:
182- [missing item question] (why needed)
183- [missing item question] (why needed)
184
185[Category]:
186- [missing item question] (why needed)
187
188--- IF APPROVED ---
189Assumptions to Confirm (DERIVABLE only):
190- [assumption] | Basis: [basis] | Validation step: [how to confirm early]
191```
192
193</output_format>
194
195## Integration with CoVe-Style Planning
196
197<cove_integration>
198
199Recommended sequence with RT-ICA:
200
201```text
202A) RT-ICA on top-level goal
203B) Draft plan and decomposition
204C) RT-ICA on each major workstream/sub-goal
205D) Assign agents with clearly bounded deliverables
206E) Verification pass: cross-check plan against conditions and acceptance criteria
207F) Refinement pass: resolve gaps, reduce risk, ensure ordering and guardrails
208```
209
210</cove_integration>
211
212## Planning Deliverables (After APPROVED)
213
214<planning_deliverables>
215
216After RT-ICA APPROVED decision, produce a plan that includes:
217
218| Section | Contents |
219| ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |
220| Workstreams | Logical groupings and ordering |
221| Agent Assignment | Which agent handles each workstream |
222| Guardrails | Safety, security, correctness, operational constraints |
223| Acceptance Criteria | Testable, measurable success conditions |
224| Risk Register | Top risks, mitigations, rollback strategy |
225| Dependencies | Internal and external dependencies |
226| Verification Plan | Tests, monitoring, canary, QA |
227| Change Management | Rollout, communications, documentation |
228
229</planning_deliverables>
230
231## Guardrails
232
233<guardrails>
234
235The model MUST NOT:
236
237- Fabricate unknown inputs
238- Silently assume missing requirements
239- Begin planning with MISSING conditions (unless user explicitly requests assumption-based planning)
240
241The model MUST:
242
243- Keep missing-input questions minimal and high signal
244- Prefer early validation tasks for DERIVABLE items
245- Block planning when information is insufficient
246
247</guardrails>
248
249## Question Templates
250
251<question_templates>
252
253When requesting missing inputs, use structured questions:
254
255**Environment/Infrastructure:**
256
257- "What is the target environment (prod/stage/dev), and where will this run (cloud/region/account)?"
258
259**Success Criteria:**
260
261- "What are the success metrics or acceptance criteria (latency, correctness, SLO)?"
262
263**Integration:**
264
265- "Which systems/APIs are in scope, and what are their interface contracts (schema/version)?"
266
267**Technical Constraints:**
268
269- "Are there constraints on language/framework/build tooling?"
270
271**Approvals:**
272
273- "Who owns approvals for release and security review (if required)?"
274
275</question_templates>
276
277## Example: RT-ICA in Action
278
279<example>
280
281**User Request:** "Build a user authentication service"
282
283**RT-ICA Summary:**
284
285```text
286RT-ICA SUMMARY
287==============
288
289Goal:
290- Implement user authentication service for the application
291
292Success Output:
293- Deployed service that authenticates users and issues session tokens
294
295Conditions (reverse prerequisites):
2961. Auth protocol | Requires: OAuth2/OIDC/custom spec | Why: Determines implementation approach
2972. User store | Requires: Database type, schema | Why: Persistence layer dependency
2983. Session management | Requires: Token format, expiry rules | Why: Security policy compliance
2994. Integration points | Requires: API consumers list | Why: Interface contract design
3005. Security requirements | Requires: Compliance standards (SOC2, HIPAA) | Why: Audit requirements
3016. Deployment target | Requires: Cloud/region/infra | Why: Runtime configuration
302
303Verification:
304- Auth protocol: MISSING | Need: Which protocol to implement
305- User store: DERIVABLE | Basis: Project uses PostgreSQL per docker-compose.yml
306- Session management: MISSING | Need: Token format and expiry policy
307- Integration points: MISSING | Need: List of services calling auth
308- Security requirements: MISSING | Need: Compliance requirements if any
309- Deployment target: AVAILABLE | Evidence: README specifies AWS us-east-1
310
311Decision:
312- BLOCKED
313
314Missing Inputs Requested:
315
316Authentication Design:
317- Which auth protocol: OAuth2, OIDC, or custom JWT? (determines implementation)
318- Session token expiry policy? (security requirement)
319
320Integration:
321- Which services will consume this auth service? (API contract design)
322
323Compliance:
324- Are there compliance requirements (SOC2, HIPAA, etc.)? (audit scope)
325```
326
327</example>
328
329## Anti-Patterns
330
331<anti_patterns>
332
333**Planning without RT-ICA:**
334
335```text
336User: "Build auth service"
337Model: "Here's my plan: 1. Create user table, 2. Add login endpoint..."
338
339Problem: Assumed requirements, will likely need rework
340```
341
342**Asking too many questions:**
343
344```text
345Model asks 20 questions about edge cases before understanding core requirements
346
347Problem: Overwhelms user, delays progress on high-signal items
348```
349
350**Proceeding with silent assumptions:**
351
352```text
353Model: "I'll assume OAuth2 since that's common..."
354
355Problem: Assumption may be wrong, causes rework or security issues
356```
357
358</anti_patterns>
359
360## Related Skills
361
362- `agent-orchestration` - Scientific delegation framework for orchestrator-to-agent workflows
363- `subagent-contract` - DONE/BLOCKED signaling protocol for sub-agents
364
365## Sources
366
367| Source | Attribution | Access Date |
368| ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------- |
369| RT-ICA Framework | [Liu et al., 2025 - Reverse Thinking Enhances Missing Information Detection in LLMs](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10273) | 2026-01-20 |
370| CoVe (Chain of Verification) | [Dhuliawala et al., 2023 - Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11495) | 2026-01-20 |
371
372**Note**: This skill adapts the RT-ICA (Reverse Thinking for Information Completeness Assessment) framework for planning workflows.