1. Conduid
  2. Developer Tools
  3. io.github.stabgan/steelmind
MCP server · Developer Tools

io.github.stabgan/steelmind

Structured thinking + steel-manning verification for AI agents. Backed by 43+ papers.

Unclaimed last commit 7 months ago devtools
37Low

Scored 7 months ago · breakdown

About io.github.stabgan/steelmind

io.github.stabgan/steelmind is an MCP server published by stabgan in the Developer Tools category: structured thinking + steel-manning verification for AI agents. Backed by 43+ papers.

The repository has 1 stars and 0 forks, with the last commit 7 months ago. Six months or more without a commit doesn't mean the server is broken, but check the open issues before depending on it in production.

Install

Claude Code
claude mcp add io-github-stabgan-steelmind -- npx -y @stabgan/steelmind-mcp
npx
npx -y @stabgan/steelmind-mcp

This server has no ConduID identity, so agent calls to it are not receipted. Pin the version you install and review the source before granting it credentials.

Ask AI

✦

Ask AI about io.github.stabgan/steelmind

Powered by Claude · Grounded in docs

I know everything about io.github.stabgan/steelmind. Ask me about installation, configuration, usage, or troubleshooting.

Security checks

  • ✓README presentThe repository ships documentation.

5 checks have not been run yet.

README

Steelmind MCP — Structured Thinking & Verification for AI Agents

npm version Docker

The research-grounded reasoning MCP server for AI agents. Combines step-by-step sequential thinking with steel-manning verification — backed by 43+ cognitive science and AI research papers.

Steelmind gives your AI agent two tools:

  • think — Record structured reasoning steps with sequential decomposition. Embeds Socratic self-questioning and Polya's problem-solving method.
  • verify — Challenge conclusions with steel-manning before committing. Embeds dialectical evaluation from MetaCrit and SIEV research.

The code is minimal. The descriptions do the heavy lifting — tool descriptions account for ~80% of reasoning improvement per Anthropic τ-bench research.

Why Steelmind?

Feature Think MCP Sequential Thinking Steelmind
Step tracking ✗ ✓ ✓
Adjustable step count ✗ ✓ ✓
Cognitive mode separation ✗ ✗ ✓
Steel-manning verification ✗ ✗ ✓
Socratic self-questioning ✗ ✗ ✓
Research-grounded descriptions ✗ ✗ ✓
Verify nudge on completion ✗ ✗ ✓
Tool count 1 1 2

Key research insight: MetaCrit (arxiv 2507.15015) proved that separating reasoning generation from reasoning evaluation prevents self-bias and improves accuracy by up to 76%. Sequential-thinking uses one tool for both. Steelmind separates them.

Quick Start

npx (no install)

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

Docker

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "docker",
      "args": ["run", "--rm", "-i", "stabgan/steelmind-mcp"]
    }
  }
}

npm global install

npm install -g @stabgan/steelmind-mcp
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "steelmind": {
      "command": "steelmind-mcp"
    }
  }
}

How It Works

The think tool

Records a structured reasoning step with sequential tracking.

Input:

{
  "thought": "What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.",
  "thoughtNumber": 1,
  "totalThoughts": 3,
  "nextThoughtNeeded": true
}

Output (mid-sequence):

[Thinking 1/3]

What are the dependencies? Need to check imports before refactoring.

Output (final step — includes verify nudge):

[Thinking 3/3]

My conclusion: use the adapter pattern for backward compatibility.

---
Thinking complete. Before acting on this conclusion, use the verify tool to challenge it.

The verify nudge appears in the tool result (not just the description), making it far more likely the model will actually call verify. Tool results get different attention treatment than descriptions — they're processed as fresh context.

The verify tool

Challenges your reasoning with steel-manning before you commit.

Input:

{
  "concern": "The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?"
}

Output:

The adapter pattern adds complexity. Is the simpler approach actually better?

Pure identity function — returns your concern unchanged. The value is in the description, which prompts: "Steel-man the opposition: What is the strongest argument that your conclusion is wrong?"

The workflow

think(step 1/3) → think(step 2/3) → think(step 3/3) → [verify nudge] → verify → act
                                          ↑
                                  adjust totalThoughts if needed

Research Foundation

Steelmind's design is grounded in 43+ research papers. Key findings:

Paper Finding How Steelmind Uses It
MetaCrit (arxiv 2507.15015) Separating generation from evaluation prevents self-bias Two separate tools: think (generate) + verify (evaluate)
Anthropic τ-bench Optimized tool descriptions yield 54% improvement Descriptions are the primary scaffold, not code
Think2 (arxiv 2602.18806) Structured metacognition yields 3x self-correction Sequential step tracking + Socratic questioning
SIEV (ICML) Models lose 40+ points under dialectical evaluation Steel-manning prompt in verify description
Scaling TTC (arxiv 2408.03314) Difficulty-adaptive compute improves efficiency 4x Adjustable totalThoughts
EasyTool (NAACL 2025) Concise descriptions outperform verbose ones ~100 word descriptions
ToolACE "When NOT to use" improves irrelevance detection 6→84% Negative guidance in both descriptions
Cognitive Foundations (arxiv 2511.16660) External scaffolding improves performance up to 72% Research-grounded cognitive frameworks

Compatible Clients

Works with any MCP-compatible client:

  • Claude Desktop / Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • Windsurf
  • Kiro
  • Cline
  • Any client supporting MCP stdio transport

Compatible Models

Designed for frontier models but works across families:

  • Claude (Opus, Sonnet) — native MCP
  • GPT-5 / GPT-4o / o-series — via MCP adapters
  • Gemini — via MCP adapters
  • DeepSeek — via MCP adapters

Development

npm install          # Install dependencies
npm run build        # Compile TypeScript
npm test             # Run 90 tests
npm run lint         # ESLint
npm run format       # Prettier
npm start            # Run the server

License

MIT

README copy captured when this server was indexed; it may lag the repository. The original is authoritative.

Questions

About io.github.stabgan/steelmind

How do I install io.github.stabgan/steelmind?

Run claude mcp add io-github-stabgan-steelmind -- npx -y @stabgan/steelmind-mcp, then add the server to your MCP client's configuration.

Is io.github.stabgan/steelmind safe to use with an AI agent?

Its trust score is 37 out of 100 (low). It passes 1 of the 1 static security checks run so far. It has no ConduID identity yet, so agent calls to it are not receipted.

Is io.github.stabgan/steelmind still maintained?

The last commit was 7 months ago. That's long enough that you should check whether the maintainer is responding to issues before depending on it.