「critical-thinking」の検索結果

Judge claims through evidence and alternatives.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

用户在做决策时受到群体压力或主流意见影响，需要区分"从众=安全"和"独立分析=真正保守"。 语言信号:"大家都说""分析师都推荐"/"这是行业惯例"/"为什么不随大流"/"保守一点是不是更安全" 不适用于:已经有独立分析支撑的决策（不需要纠偏时）。

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate a Socratic questioning sequence that develops conceptual understanding through guided inquiry. Use when facilitating philosophical discussions, concept exploration, or critical examination.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design a source evaluation protocol using lateral reading and credibility checks for digital information. Use when students need to evaluate websites, online sources, or social media claims.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design a media deconstruction protocol analysing persuasion, bias, or representation in media texts. Use when teaching students to critically read advertisements, news, or social media content.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design a multi-round questioning sequence for interrogating AI chatbot answers, tracking how responses shift and distinguishing genuine updates from sycophantic capitulation. Use when teaching students to probe AI critically.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

After any AI-generated explanation, require the learner to identify one place it could be wrong, one thing to check, and one source to consult. Builds epistemic vigilance — treats AI output as a claim to evaluate, not truth to absorb.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Generate argument structure scaffolds using Toulmin, PEEL, or CER frameworks for a specific claim or question. Use when teaching argumentative or analytical writing across any subject.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Design a structured protocol for auditing AI-generated text against Ennis's six CT standards. Use when students need to critically evaluate AI output in any subject.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Audit the reasoning of a document or argument (memo, proposal, investment analysis, board paper, article, the user's own draft): claims, evidence, unstated assumptions, logical gaps, fallacies, and what would falsify it, each anchored to quoted text. Use whenever the user wants reasoning examined, in any language ("audit this argument", "is this analysis sound", "poke holes in this proposal", "review the logic of my draft"; Vietnamese "phản biện giúp tôi", "soi lập luận này", "tài liệu này có lỗ hổng gì", "góp ý bản nháp của tôi"), even when they never say "critical thinking". Also use when the user drops a document and asks whether to trust or act on it, or asks to see their reasoning profile. Not for company-level strategic bets (strategy-board) or learning a topic through dialogue (socratic-questor).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Construct well-structured arguments using the hypothesis-argument-example triad. Covers formulating falsifiable hypotheses, building logical arguments (deductive, inductive, analogical, evidential), providing concrete examples, and steelmanning counterarguments. Use when writing or reviewing PR descriptions that propose technical changes, justifying design decisions in ADRs, constructing substantive code review feedback, or building a research argument or technical proposal.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use for critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes", "sanity check", "devil's advocate", "red team this". Skip for execution-only tasks and wording edits.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when reviewing PRs/diffs/branches/documents for .NET quality, correctness, performance, security, data access, messaging, and observability. Includes adversarial critical-thinking mode for skeptical/cynical review requests. Keywords: code review, review PR, review diff, critical review, cynical review, adversarial review, production readiness, low GC, AOT, security review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

変更に含まれる設計判断・実装選択の論理的整合性を徹底的に検証し、確証バイアスを排除して判断精度を高める