Problem-Solving — Strategic Unsticking

Seven techniques for non-debugging stuck-ness. Each targets a specific failure mode of default thinking.

When to Use

NOT this skill if: you want open solution exploration before any plan exists — use mk:brainstorming. NOT this skill if: you want to re-examine an existing output or verdict — use mk:elicit.

Match symptom to technique. Load the reference only after matching.

Stuck symptom	Technique	Reference
Same thing implemented 5+ ways, growing special cases	Simplification Cascades	references/simplification-cascades.md
Conventional solutions inadequate, need breakthrough	Collision-Zone Thinking	references/collision-zone-thinking.md
Same issue across domains, reinventing wheels	Meta-Pattern Recognition	references/meta-pattern-recognition.md
Solution feels forced, "must be done this way"	Inversion Exercise	references/inversion-exercise.md
"Should scale fine" — no idea where limits are	Scale Game	references/scale-game.md
Told it's "impossible" / reasoning by analogy	First Principles	references/first-principles.md
Bloated system, remove > add, simplify by subtraction	Via Negativa	references/via-negativa.md
Unsure which applies	Dispatch flowchart	references/when-stuck.md

Do NOT use for

• Anything broken / needing a fix — use mk:fix (top-level orchestrator; invokes scout + investigate + sequential-thinking, adds regression tests, writes to memory).
• Pure diagnostic reasoning without fix intent — use mk:sequential-thinking directly (evidence-based hypothesis testing).
• Trivial fixes — typo, rename, single-file change with obvious cause.
• Known-options trade-off — use mk:party (multi-agent deliberation) or mk:brainstorming (solution alternatives).

The line: problem-solving is for being stuck on approach. Sequential-thinking is for being stuck on cause. mk:fix is for anything broken that needs fixing.

The Seven Techniques

1. Simplification Cascades

Find one insight that eliminates multiple components. "Everything is a special case of X."

• Win shape: 10× (things deleted), not 10% (things optimized).
• Red flag: "Just need to add one more case..." repeating forever.

2. Collision-Zone Thinking

Force unrelated domains together. "What if we treated X like Y?"

• Win shape: Emergent properties from metaphor (services like circuits → circuit breakers, fuses).
• Red flag: "I've tried everything in this domain."

3. Meta-Pattern Recognition

Pattern in 3+ domains → likely universal. Extract, abstract, reuse.

• Win shape: Caching (CPU / DB / HTTP / DNS / CDN / LLM) collapses to one abstract "store frequently-accessed data closer."
• Red flag: "This problem is unique" — it probably isn't.

4. Inversion Exercise

Flip the core assumption. "What if the opposite were true?"

• Win shape: Valid inversion reveals context-dependence (strategic slowness → debounce, rate-limit, lazy-load).
• Red flag: "There's only one way to do this."

5. Scale Game

Test at extremes (1000× bigger / smaller). Extremes expose what normal scales hide.

• Win shape: Production readiness validated before production.
• Red flag: "Should scale fine" without evidence.

6. First Principles

Strip to fundamental truths. Rebuild from verified basics. Escape reasoning by analogy.

• Win shape: SpaceX-style 10× cost reduction by questioning "because that's the industry price."
• Red flag: Everyone accepts a constraint without evidence.

7. Via Negativa

Improve by removing, not adding. Subtraction is more robust than addition.

• Win shape: Remove a retry-with-backoff wrapper → surfaces the real intermittent bug → obvious fix.
• Red flag: "Adding X to fix the problem caused by adding Y."

Process

1. Match symptom → pick technique (use when-stuck.md if unsure).
2. Load the one relevant reference. Do not preload others.
3. Apply. Document what worked and what did not.
4. Combine only if the first pass does not resolve.

Combining Techniques

Use only when one pass fails. Keep the log.

• Simplification + Meta-Pattern — find pattern across domains, then collapse instances.
• Collision + Inversion — force the metaphor, then invert its assumptions.
• Scale + Via Negativa — extremes reveal what to cut.
• First Principles + Inversion — rebuild from zero, then flip the rebuild.

Gotchas

• Tool-stacking — running 3 techniques before finishing one. One at a time. Finish or discard before adding.
• Debugging misroute — "my code is broken" is not problem-solving territory. Route to mk:sequential-thinking.
• Premature abstraction — collapsing 2 instances. Meta-pattern rule requires 3+ domains.
• Metaphor over-fit (collision) — every metaphor breaks. Document where it breaks, do not hide it.
• Invalid inversion — "trust all user input" is a security hole, not a context-dependent inversion. Test: does it work in any real context?
• Scale-game theater — thinking about 1000× without running the numbers. Estimate concretely or it's vibes.
• First-principles tourism — listing assumptions without challenging them. Must ask why each one is assumed.
• Via-negativa overkill — removing something users rely on. Confirm usage via telemetry before stripping.
• Sunk-cost clinging — refusing to accept a technique gave nothing. Move on. Log the null result.

Workflow Integration

user stuck on approach
   ├→ match symptom → apply ONE technique → resolved ✓
   ├→ not resolved → try a combination (see above)
   ├→ actually stuck on cause → route to mk:sequential-thinking
   └→ actually a multi-perspective trade-off → route to mk:party

References

Load only what you need. Before emitting any Mermaid block, Read .claude/skills/preview/references/mermaid-essentials.md.

• references/when-stuck.md — dispatch flowchart (start here if symptom unclear)
• references/simplification-cascades.md
• references/collision-zone-thinking.md
• references/meta-pattern-recognition.md
• references/inversion-exercise.md
• references/scale-game.md
• references/first-principles.md
• references/via-negativa.md