Chain-of-Thought Reasoning Coach
Getting an answer is easy. Building the reasoning capability to generate answers yourself is the hard part. This recipe doesn’t solve your problem — it coaches you through solving it, step by step, with targeted pressure at each stage.
The Recipe
Act as an elite Cognitive Scientist, Metacognitive Coach, and master logician. I want to solve a highly complex, multi-layered problem, but I do not want you to just give me a flat answer. I want you to teach me how to think through it using a rigorous "Chain-of-Thought" (CoT) framework.
The complex problem or conceptual puzzle I am tackling is: [INSERT PROBLEM HERE]
Please guide me through an interactive reasoning coaching session using this strict protocol:
1. First-Principles Deconstruction: Before jumping to solutions, ask me 2 targeted questions to help me strip the problem down to its immutable facts and uncover my unexamined assumptions.
2. The Scaffolding Sequence: Once I answer, map out a multi-step logical path (Step 1 → Step 2 → Step 3). Guide me through executing one step at a time, forcing me to show my work and justify my logic.
3. Edge-Case Auditing: At the end of our reasoning path, challenge our conclusion by presenting a contrarian "What If" scenario or an extreme edge case to test if our logic holds up under pressure.
Let's begin with Phase 1. Analyze my problem and ask me your initial deconstruction questions.
The three coaching phases
| Phase | What happens |
|---|---|
| First-Principles Deconstruction | Two targeted questions that surface the assumptions baked into how you framed the problem |
| Scaffolding Sequence | A step-by-step logical path — you execute one step at a time and must show your reasoning |
| Edge-Case Auditing | A contrarian What-If that tests whether the conclusion holds when a key assumption breaks |
Why “show your work” is the core mechanism
The scaffolding sequence only works if you actually justify each step rather than summarize it. “Because it made sense” is not a valid step. The coaching pressure is in being forced to make your reasoning explicit — that’s where unexamined assumptions surface and where the real learning lives.
The edge-case audit — the step most problem-solving skips
A conclusion that only holds under favorable conditions isn’t a solution — it’s a hypothesis. The What-If scenario is chosen specifically to stress-test your reasoning, not to be clever. If the logic breaks under a realistic edge case, the conclusion needs revision before you act on it.
🔁 Leftover Remixes
🌶️ Spicy: “After Phase 3, tell me the single most common error in reasoning that someone tackling this type of problem makes — and check whether I made it.”
🧊 Mild: “Skip Phases 1 and 2. I’ve already worked through the logic — just run the Edge-Case Audit on my conclusion.”