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: 328-description-skill-f7606f9c3description: 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---56# RT-ICA: Reverse Thinking - Information Completeness Assessment78## Purpose910This skill inserts a mandatory RT-ICA checkpoint into planning workflows. For every goal (top-level and each decomposed sub-goal), the model MUST:11121. Reverse-think prerequisites from the goal132. Assess information completeness for each prerequisite143. Either BLOCK planning until missing inputs are obtained, or APPROVE with explicit assumptions1516<core_rule>1718**No planning, delegation, scheduling, or solution design may begin until RT-ICA has been performed on:**19201. The overall goal/request212. Each decomposed goal or sub-goal that could fail due to missing information2223**If ANY required condition is MISSING, the model MUST stop and request only the missing information.**2425</core_rule>2627## Activation Triggers2829<activation_triggers>3031Invoke RT-ICA when receiving ANY of:3233- Spec, request, ticket, user story, PRD, architecture design, RFC34- Request to produce a plan, execution order, agent delegation, guardrails, acceptance criteria, or rollout steps35- Any multi-step engineering effort with dependencies, unknowns, constraints, or risk3637**Integration Points** (where RT-ICA checkpoints MUST occur):38391. Before creating the top-level plan402. 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)4344</activation_triggers>4546## Definitions4748<definitions>4950| 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 |5859</definitions>6061## RT-ICA Procedure6263Apply this procedure to each goal and sub-goal:6465<procedure>6667### Step 1: Goal Reconstruction6869Produce:7071- **Goal statement**: One sentence describing the desired outcome72- **Output form**: What deliverable proves success (artifact, behavior, metric, deployment state)73- **Scope boundaries**: In-scope/out-of-scope if stated7475### Step 2: Reverse Prerequisite Enumeration7677Work backwards from the goal to list ALL conditions required for success.7879<condition_categories>8081Include conditions in these categories (where applicable):8283| 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 |9596</condition_categories>9798For each condition, specify:99100- **Condition name**101- **Required information** to verify/satisfy it102- **Why it matters** (one line)103104### Step 3: Availability Verification105106For each condition, set status:107108| 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 |113114### Step 4: Completeness Decision115116```text117IF any condition is MISSING:118 DECISION = BLOCKED119ELSE:120 DECISION = APPROVED121```122123### Step 5: Action Based on Decision124125<decision_actions>126127**IF BLOCKED:**1281291. Do NOT plan1302. Ask ONLY for missing inputs1313. Structure questions by category, ordered by criticality1324. Prefer multiple-choice or constrained questions when possible1335. If user explicitly requests assumption-based planning:134 - Proceed with explicit assumptions for each missing condition135 - Include risk note per assumption136 - Add validation tasks to confirm assumptions early137138**IF APPROVED:**1391401. Proceed to normal planning1412. Carry forward the validated condition list1423. Mark DERIVABLE items as "assumptions to confirm"1434. Enforce constraints as guardrails144145</decision_actions>146147</procedure>148149## Output Format150151<output_format>152153The model MUST produce this summary block for each goal/sub-goal:154155```text156RT-ICA SUMMARY157158Goal:159- [one sentence]160161Success Output:162- [deliverable/observable result]163164Conditions (reverse prerequisites):1651. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]1662. [Condition] | Requires: [info] | Why: [1 line]167...168169Verification:170- [Condition 1]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]171- [Condition 2]: [AVAILABLE|DERIVABLE|MISSING] | Evidence/Basis: [text]172...173174Decision:175- [APPROVED|BLOCKED]176177--- IF BLOCKED ---178Missing Inputs Requested:179180[Category]:181- [missing item question] (why needed)182- [missing item question] (why needed)183184[Category]:185- [missing item question] (why needed)186187--- IF APPROVED ---188Assumptions to Confirm (DERIVABLE only):189- [assumption] | Basis: [basis] | Validation step: [how to confirm early]190```191192</output_format>193194## Integration with CoVe-Style Planning195196<cove_integration>197198Recommended sequence with RT-ICA:199200```text201A) RT-ICA on top-level goal202B) Draft plan and decomposition203C) RT-ICA on each major workstream/sub-goal204D) Assign agents with clearly bounded deliverables205E) Verification pass: cross-check plan against conditions and acceptance criteria206F) Refinement pass: resolve gaps, reduce risk, ensure ordering and guardrails207```208209</cove_integration>210211## Planning Deliverables (After APPROVED)212213<planning_deliverables>214215After RT-ICA APPROVED decision, produce a plan that includes:216217| Section | Contents |218| ------------------- | ------------------------------------------------------ |219| Workstreams | Logical groupings and ordering |220| Agent Assignment | Which agent handles each workstream |221| Guardrails | Safety, security, correctness, operational constraints |222| Acceptance Criteria | Testable, measurable success conditions |223| Risk Register | Top risks, mitigations, rollback strategy |224| Dependencies | Internal and external dependencies |225| Verification Plan | Tests, monitoring, canary, QA |226| Change Management | Rollout, communications, documentation |227228</planning_deliverables>229230## Guardrails231232<guardrails>233234The model MUST NOT:235236- Fabricate unknown inputs237- Silently assume missing requirements238- Begin planning with MISSING conditions (unless user explicitly requests assumption-based planning)239240The model MUST:241242- Keep missing-input questions minimal and high signal243- Prefer early validation tasks for DERIVABLE items244- Block planning when information is insufficient245246</guardrails>247248## Question Templates249250<question_templates>251252When requesting missing inputs, use structured questions:253254**Environment/Infrastructure:**255256- "What is the target environment (prod/stage/dev), and where will this run (cloud/region/account)?"257258**Success Criteria:**259260- "What are the success metrics or acceptance criteria (latency, correctness, SLO)?"261262**Integration:**263264- "Which systems/APIs are in scope, and what are their interface contracts (schema/version)?"265266**Technical Constraints:**267268- "Are there constraints on language/framework/build tooling?"269270**Approvals:**271272- "Who owns approvals for release and security review (if required)?"273274</question_templates>275276## Example: RT-ICA in Action277278<example>279280**User Request:** "Build a user authentication service"281282**RT-ICA Summary:**283284```text285RT-ICA SUMMARY286287Goal:288- Implement user authentication service for the application289290Success Output:291- Deployed service that authenticates users and issues session tokens292293Conditions (reverse prerequisites):2941. Auth protocol | Requires: OAuth2/OIDC/custom spec | Why: Determines implementation approach2952. User store | Requires: Database type, schema | Why: Persistence layer dependency2963. Session management | Requires: Token format, expiry rules | Why: Security policy compliance2974. Integration points | Requires: API consumers list | Why: Interface contract design2985. Security requirements | Requires: Compliance standards (SOC2, HIPAA) | Why: Audit requirements2996. Deployment target | Requires: Cloud/region/infra | Why: Runtime configuration300301Verification:302- Auth protocol: MISSING | Need: Which protocol to implement303- User store: DERIVABLE | Basis: Project uses PostgreSQL per docker-compose.yml304- Session management: MISSING | Need: Token format and expiry policy305- Integration points: MISSING | Need: List of services calling auth306- Security requirements: MISSING | Need: Compliance requirements if any307- Deployment target: AVAILABLE | Evidence: README specifies AWS us-east-1308309Decision:310- BLOCKED311312Missing Inputs Requested:313314Authentication Design:315- Which auth protocol: OAuth2, OIDC, or custom JWT? (determines implementation)316- Session token expiry policy? (security requirement)317318Integration:319- Which services will consume this auth service? (API contract design)320321Compliance:322- Are there compliance requirements (SOC2, HIPAA, etc.)? (audit scope)323```324325</example>326327## Anti-Patterns328329<anti_patterns>330331**Planning without RT-ICA:**332333```text334User: "Build auth service"335Model: "Here's my plan: 1. Create user table, 2. Add login endpoint..."336337Problem: Assumed requirements, will likely need rework338```339340**Asking too many questions:**341342```text343Model asks 20 questions about edge cases before understanding core requirements344345Problem: Overwhelms user, delays progress on high-signal items346```347348**Proceeding with silent assumptions:**349350```text351Model: "I'll assume OAuth2 since that's common..."352353Problem: Assumption may be wrong, causes rework or security issues354```355356</anti_patterns>357358## Related Skills359360- `agent-orchestration` - Scientific delegation framework for orchestrator-to-agent workflows361- `subagent-contract` - DONE/BLOCKED signaling protocol for sub-agents362363## Sources364365| Source | Attribution | Access Date |366| ---------------------------- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------- |367| RT-ICA Framework | [Liu et al., 2025 - Reverse Thinking Enhances Missing Information Detection in LLMs](https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.10273) | 2026-01-20 |368| CoVe (Chain of Verification) | [Dhuliawala et al., 2023 - Chain-of-Verification Reduces Hallucination](https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.11495) | 2026-01-20 |369370**Note**: This skill adapts the RT-ICA (Reverse Thinking for Information Completeness Assessment) framework for planning workflows.