Loading...
Loading...
Found 123 Skills
Use when clarifying fuzzy boundaries, defining quality criteria, teaching by counterexample, preventing common mistakes, setting design guardrails, disambiguating similar concepts, refining requirements through anti-patterns, creating clear decision criteria, or when user mentions near-miss examples, anti-goals, what not to do, negative examples, counterexamples, or boundary clarification.
Apply George Mack's High Agency approach to founder and leadership execution. Use when facing ambiguity, blockers, stalled execution, "impossible" constraints, cross-functional deadlock, or high-uncertainty decisions that require ownership and rapid action.
Structured multi-perspective deliberation through adversarial dialogue
Guidance for asking clarifying questions when user requests are ambiguous, have multiple valid approaches, or require critical decisions. Use when implementation choices exist that could significantly affect outcomes.
Expert methodology for breaking down complex problems into fundamental truths and rebuilding solutions from the ground up. Use when users need breakthrough innovation (not incremental improvement), question industry assumptions, face seemingly impossible problems, want to understand root causes, ask "why does this have to be this way", "rethink from scratch", "reimagine this", request analysis "from first principles", want to challenge conventional wisdom, question everything, or need to deconstruct problems to their core elements. Ideal for strategic decisions, innovation challenges, cost optimization, and escaping local optima.
Guides technical decisions, architecture, and implementation. Use for tech choices, system design, API design, refactoring, or "how should I build this" questions.
Parliamentary procedure as forcing function for genuine deliberation
Walk through decisions using a 3-part framework (first-principles, cost/benefit, second-order effects). Use when choosing between options, evaluating trade-offs, or making high-stakes decisions.
RICE prioritization scoring initiatives by Reach, Impact, Confidence, and Effort. Use for feature prioritization, roadmap planning, or when comparing initiatives objectively.
Structured disagreement protocols to strengthen proposals through systematic challenge and alternative generation.
Apply cognitive bias detection whenever the user (or Claude itself) is making an evaluation, recommendation, or decision that could be silently distorted by systematic thinking errors. Triggers on phrases like "I'm pretty sure", "obviously", "everyone agrees", "we already invested so much", "this has always worked", "just one more try", "I knew it", "the data confirms what we thought", "we can't go back now", or when analysis feels suspiciously aligned with what someone wanted to hear. Also trigger proactively when evaluating high-stakes decisions, plans with significant sunk costs, or conclusions that conveniently support the evaluator's existing position. The goal is not to paralyze — it's to flag where reasoning may be compromised so it can be corrected.
Break any problem down to fundamental truths, then rebuild solutions from atoms up. Use when user says "firstp", "first principles", "from scratch", "what are we assuming", "break this down", "atomic", "fundamental truth", "physics thinking", "Elon method", "bedrock", "ground up", "core problem", "strip away", or challenges assumptions about how things are done.