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:

[Failure mode 1] → Mitigation: [...]
[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:

[Model 1 from X discipline] Insight: [...]
[Model 2 from Y discipline] Insight: [...]
[Model 3 from Z discipline] Insight: [...]

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

First Principles Breakdown:

Core assumptions:

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

Fundamental truth: [What remains after stripping assumptions]

Systems Map:

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:

[Concrete action with timeline]
[Concrete action with timeline]
[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):

[Concept 1]: [Definition + Example]
[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

[Question to test understanding]
[Question to test application]
[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)

[Insight 1] Why it matters: [Personal relevance] One action: [Specific, time-bound]
[Insight 2] Why it matters: [Personal relevance] One action: [Specific, time-bound]
[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.