deep-reading-analyst

Deep Reading Analyst

Transforms surface-level reading into deep learning through systematic analysis using 10+ proven thinking frameworks. Guides users from understanding to application through structured workflows.

Framework Arsenal Quick Analysis (15min) 📋 SCQA - Structure thinking (Situation-Complication-Question-Answer) 🔍 5W2H - Completeness check (What, Why, Who, When, Where, How, How much) Standard Analysis (30min) 🎯 Critical Thinking - Argument evaluation 🔄 Inversion Thinking - Risk identification Deep Analysis (60min) 🧠 Mental Models - Multi-perspective analysis (physics, biology, psychology, economics) ⚡ First Principles - Essence extraction 🔗 Systems Thinking - Relationship mapping 🎨 Six Thinking Hats - Structured creativity Research Analysis (120min+) 📊 Cross-Source Comparison - Multi-article synthesis Workflow Decision Tree User provides content ↓ Ask: Purpose + Depth Level + Preferred Frameworks ↓ ┌─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┬─────────────────┐ │ Level 1 │ Level 2 │ Level 3 │ Level 4 │ │ Quick │ Standard │ Deep │ Research │ │ 15min │ 30min │ 60min │ 120min+ │ ├─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┼─────────────────┤ │ • SCQA │ Level 1 + │ Level 2 + │ Level 3 + │ │ • 5W2H │ • Critical │ • Mental Models │ • Cross-source │ │ • Structure │ • Inversion │ • First Princ. │ • Web search │ │ │ │ • Systems │ • Synthesis │ │ │ │ • Six Hats │ │ └─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┴─────────────────┘

Step 1: Initialize Analysis

Ask User (conversationally):

"What's your main goal for reading this?" Problem-solving / Learning / Writing / Decision-making / Curiosity "How deep do you want to go?" Quick (15min) / Standard (30min) / Deep (60min) / Research (120min+) "Any specific frameworks you'd like to use?" Suggest based on content type (see Framework Selection Guide below)

Default if no response: Level 2 (Standard mode) with auto-selected frameworks

Framework Selection Guide

Based on content type, auto-suggest:

📄 Strategy/Business articles → SCQA + Mental Models + Inversion 📊 Research papers → 5W2H + Critical Thinking + Systems Thinking 💡 How-to guides → SCQA + 5W2H + First Principles 🎯 Opinion pieces → Critical Thinking + Inversion + Six Hats 📈 Case studies → SCQA + Mental Models + Systems Thinking

Step 2: Structural Understanding

Always start here regardless of depth level.

Phase 2A: Basic Structure 📄 Content Type: [Article/Paper/Report/Guide] ⏱️ Estimated reading time: [X minutes] 🎯 Core Thesis: [One sentence]

Structure Overview: ├─ Main Argument 1 │ ├─ Supporting point 1.1 │ └─ Supporting point 1.2 ├─ Main Argument 2 └─ Main Argument 3

Key Concepts: [3-5 terms with brief definitions]

Phase 2B: SCQA Analysis (Quick Framework)

Load references/scqa_framework.md and apply:

SCQA Structure

S (Situation): [Background/context the article establishes] C (Complication): [Problem/challenge identified] Q (Question): [Core question being addressed] A (Answer): [Main solution/conclusion]

📊 Structure Quality: - Clarity: [★★★★☆] - Logic flow: [★★★★★] - Completeness: [★★★☆☆]

Phase 2C: 5W2H Completeness Check (if Level 1+)

Quick scan using references/5w2h_analysis.md:

Information Completeness

✅ Well-covered: [What, Why, How] ⚠️ Partially covered: [Who, When] ❌ Missing: [Where, How much]

🔴 Critical gaps: [List 1-2 most important missing pieces]

Step 3: Apply Thinking Models

Select based on depth level and user preference:

Level 1 (Quick - 15 min)

Core: Structure + SCQA + 5W2H Quick Check

Output:

SCQA breakdown Information gaps (from 5W2H) TOP 3 insights 1 immediate action item Level 2 (Standard - 30 min)

Add: Critical Thinking + Inversion

Load and apply:

references/critical_thinking.md:

Argument quality assessment Logic flaw identification Evidence evaluation Alternative perspectives

references/inversion_thinking.md:

How to ensure failure? (reverse the advice) What assumptions if wrong? Missing risks Pre-mortem analysis

Critical Analysis

Argument Strength: [X/10]

Strengths: - [Point 1]

Weaknesses: - [Point 1]

Logical fallacies detected: - [If any]

Inversion Analysis

🚨 How this could fail: 1. [Failure mode 1] → Mitigation: [...] 2. [Failure mode 2] → Mitigation: [...]

Missing risk factors: - [Risk 1]

Level 3 (Deep - 60 min)

Add: Mental Models + First Principles + Systems + Six Hats

Load and apply:

references/mental_models.md:

Select 3-5 relevant models from different disciplines Apply each lens to the content Identify cross-model insights

references/first_principles.md:

Strip to fundamental truths Identify core assumptions Rebuild understanding from base

references/systems_thinking.md:

Map relationships and feedback loops Identify leverage points See the big picture

references/six_hats.md:

White (facts), Red (feelings), Black (caution) Yellow (benefits), Green (creativity), Blue (process)

Multi-Model Analysis

Mental Models Applied:

1. [Model 1 from X discipline] Insight: [...]

2. [Model 2 from Y discipline] Insight: [...]

3. [Model 3 from Z discipline] Insight: [...]

Cross-model pattern: [Key insight from combining models]

First Principles Breakdown:

Core assumptions: 1. [Assumption 1] → Valid: [Yes/No/Conditional] 2. [Assumption 2] → Valid: [Yes/No/Conditional]

Fundamental truth: [What remains after stripping assumptions]

Systems Map:

[Variable A] ──reinforces──> [Variable B] ↑ | | | balances reinforces | | └─────────<────────────────┘

Leverage point: [Where small change = big impact]

Six Hats Perspective:

🤍 Facts: [Objective data] ❤️ Feelings: [Intuitive response] 🖤 Cautions: [Risks and downsides] 💛 Benefits: [Positive aspects] 💚 Ideas: [Creative alternatives] 💙 Process: [Meta-thinking]

Level 4 (Research - 120 min+)

Add: Cross-source comparison via web_search

Use web_search to find 2-3 related sources, then:

Load references/comparison_matrix.md Compare SCQA across sources Identify consensus vs. divergence Synthesize integrated perspective

Multi-Source Analysis

Source 1: [This article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary] Key claim: [...]

Source 2: [Found article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary] Key claim: [...]

Source 3: [Found article]

S-C-Q-A: [Summary] Key claim: [...]

Synthesis

Consensus: [What all agree on] Divergence: [Where they differ] Unique value: [What each contributes] Integrated view: [Your synthesis]

Step 4: Synthesis & Output

Generate based on user goal:

For Problem-Solving:

Applicable Solutions

[Extract 2-3 methods from content]

Application Plan

Problem: [User's specific issue] Relevant insights: [From analysis]

Action steps: 1. [Concrete action with timeline] 2. [Concrete action with timeline] 3. [Concrete action with timeline]

Success metrics: [How to measure]

Risk Mitigation (from Inversion)

Potential failure points: - [Point 1] → Prevent by: [...] - [Point 2] → Prevent by: [...]

For Learning:

Learning Notes

Core concepts (explained simply): 1. [Concept 1]: [Definition + Example] 2. [Concept 2]: [Definition + Example]

Mental models gained: - [Model 1]: [How it works]

Connections to prior knowledge: - [Link to something user already knows]

Deeper Understanding (First Principles)

Fundamental question: [...] Core principle: [...]

Verification Questions

1. [Question to test understanding]
2. [Question to test application]
3. [Question to test evaluation]

For Writing Reference:

Key Arguments & Evidence

[Structured extraction with page/paragraph numbers]

Quotable Insights

"[Quote 1]" — Context: [...] "[Quote 2]" — Context: [...]

Critical Analysis Notes

Strengths: [For citing] Limitations: [For balanced discussion]

Alternative Perspectives (from Mental Models)

[What other disciplines would say about this]

Gaps & Counterfactuals

What the article doesn't address: - [Gap 1] - [Gap 2]

For Decision-Making:

Decision Framework

Options presented: [A / B / C]

Multi-model evaluation: - Economic lens: [...] - Risk lens (Inversion): [...] - Systems lens: [...]

Six Hats Decision Analysis

🤍 Facts: [Objective comparison] 🖤 Risks: [What could go wrong] 💛 Benefits: [Upside potential] 💚 Alternatives: [Other options not considered] 💙 Recommendation: [Synthesized advice]

Scenario Analysis (from Inversion)

Best case: [...] Worst case: [...] Most likely: [...]

Step 5: Knowledge Activation

Always end with:

🎯 Immediate Takeaways (Top 3)

1. [Insight 1] Why it matters: [Personal relevance] One action: [Specific, time-bound]

2. [Insight 2] Why it matters: [Personal relevance] One action: [Specific, time-bound]

3. [Insight 3] Why it matters: [Personal relevance] One action: [Specific, time-bound]

💡 Quick Win

[One thing to try in next 24 hours - make it TINY and SPECIFIC]

🔗 Next Steps

To deepen understanding: [ ] Further reading: [If relevant] [ ] Apply framework X to topic Y [ ] Discuss with: [Who could add perspective]

To apply: [ ] Experiment: [Test in real context] [ ] Teach: [Explain to someone else] [ ] Combine: [Mix with another idea]

🧭 Thinking Models Used

[Checkboxes showing which frameworks were applied] ✅ SCQA ✅ 5W2H ✅ Critical Thinking ✅ Inversion □ Mental Models □ First Principles □ Systems □ Six Hats

Quality Standards

Every analysis must:

✅ Stay faithful to original content (no misrepresentation) ✅ Distinguish facts from opinions ✅ Provide concrete examples ✅ Apply frameworks appropriately (not force-fit) ✅ Connect to user's context when possible ✅ End with actionable steps ✅ Cite specific sections (paragraph numbers, quotes)

Avoid:

❌ Overwhelming with all frameworks at once (respect depth level) ❌ Academic jargon without explanation ❌ Analysis without application ❌ Copying text verbatim (always reword for understanding) ❌ Using frameworks superficially (go deep, not wide) Interaction Patterns

Progressive questioning:

Understanding: "What do you think the author means by X?" Critical: "Do you see any gaps in this argument?" Application: "How might you use this in your work?" Meta: "Which thinking model helped you most? Why?"

Adapt to signals:

User asks "what's the main point?" → They want conciseness, use SCQA User challenges your analysis → Lean into Critical Thinking + Inversion User asks "how do I use this?" → Focus on application + First Principles User wants "multiple perspectives" → Use Six Hats or Mental Models User mentions "risks" → Apply Inversion Thinking User asks "how does this connect?" → Use Systems Thinking

Framework suggestions during conversation:

"Would you like me to apply [X framework] to this point?" "This seems like a good place for inversion thinking - want to explore failure modes?" "I notice several mental models at play here, want me to unpack them?" Reference Materials Core Frameworks (All Levels) references/scqa_framework.md - Structure thinking (S-C-Q-A) references/5w2h_analysis.md - Completeness check (7 questions) Standard Level Frameworks references/critical_thinking.md - Argument analysis references/inversion_thinking.md - Risk and failure mode analysis Deep Level Frameworks references/mental_models.md - Multi-discipline model library references/first_principles.md - Essence extraction method references/systems_thinking.md - Relationship mapping references/six_hats.md - Multi-perspective protocol Output Formats references/output_templates.md - Note format examples references/comparison_matrix.md - Cross-article analysis Advanced Usage Custom Framework Combinations

User can request specific combinations:

"Use SCQA + Inversion" - Structure with risk analysis "Apply Mental Models + Systems Thinking" - Multi-lens system analysis "5W2H + Critical Thinking" - Completeness + quality check Iterative Deepening

Start with Level 1, then ask:

"Want to go deeper on any part?" "Which framework would be most valuable here?" "Should we do an inversion analysis of this solution?" Domain-Specific Optimizations

Business/Strategy: SCQA + Mental Models (economics) + Inversion Technical/Research: 5W2H + First Principles + Critical Thinking Personal Development: Six Hats + Inversion + Systems Decision-Making: Mental Models + Inversion + SCQA Creative: Six Hats + First Principles + Mental Models

Remember: The goal is insight, not framework completion. Use frameworks as tools to reveal understanding, not as checklists to complete. Quality of thinking > quantity of frameworks applied.