---
name: mohitagw15856/from-first-principles
source: https://app.decimal.ai/s/mohitagw15856-from-first-principles@1/SKILL.md
source_sha256: f55e51d8d9d5
---

# From First Principles

Most answers are reasoned by analogy — "this is how it's done, so we do it too." First-principles thinking throws that out: it breaks the problem down to what's *actually, physically, economically* true, then rebuilds from those basics. The result often diverges sharply from convention, because the convention was inherited, not derived.

## What This Skill Produces

- **The fundamentals** — the problem reduced to what's genuinely true (constraints from physics, math, economics, human needs), not what's assumed
- **The inherited assumptions** — the "that's just how it's done" beliefs, named and questioned (which are real constraints, which are just convention?)
- **The rebuild** — a solution reasoned upward from the fundamentals
- **The divergence** — where this differs from the default, and why the default existed anyway

## Required Inputs

Ask for these if not provided:
- **The problem or decision** — what you're rethinking
- **The current/default approach** — how it's normally done
- **The real goal** — what you're actually trying to achieve
- **The constraints you believe exist** — so we can test which are real

## Framework: Reduce, Question, Rebuild

1. **Reduce to fundamentals.** Ask "what do we know is actually true here?" — the real physical, economic, and human constraints, not the conventional wisdom.
2. **Separate laws from conventions.** Some constraints are unbreakable (physics, budget); many "constraints" are just how it's always been done. Sort them.
3. **Question the conventions.** For each inherited assumption, ask *why* — often the original reason is gone, or never applied to you.
4. **Rebuild from the base.** Reason a solution up from the fundamentals alone, ignoring the default path.
5. **Compare to the default.** Show where the first-principles answer diverges — and fairly consider why the convention exists (sometimes it's right; sometimes it's inertia).

## Output Format

### Problem: [what we're rethinking]

**Fundamentals (actually true):** [the real constraints/basics].
**Assumptions to question**
| "It's done this way because…" | Real constraint or just convention? |
|---|---|

**Rebuilt from basics:** [the solution reasoned up from fundamentals].
**Vs. the default:** [where it diverges, and whether the convention still has a point].

## Quality Checks
- [ ] The problem is genuinely reduced to fundamental truths
- [ ] Real constraints are separated from mere conventions
- [ ] Each inherited assumption is questioned with "why"
- [ ] The solution is rebuilt from the base, not tweaked from the default
- [ ] It fairly considers why the convention exists before dismissing it

## Anti-Patterns
- **Reasoning by analogy** dressed up as first principles.
- **Treating conventions as laws** without testing them.
- **Throwing out a convention** that actually has a good reason.
- **Stopping at "question everything"** without rebuilding an answer.

## Example Trigger Phrases
- "Think about this from first principles."
- "Why is this industry done this way — does it have to be?"
- "Challenge the assumptions behind how I'm approaching this."
- "Rebuild my morning routine from scratch, ignoring how I do it now."
- "Strip this problem to basics and reason it back up."