Loading...
Loading...
Found 206 Skills
Systematic debugging methodology emphasizing root cause analysis over quick fixes
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.
Two-round debate protocol where perspectives challenge each other before consensus. Round 1 presents independent positions, Round 2 allows counter-arguments and rebuttals. Produces battle-tested decisions for high-stakes choices.
Based on the KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) and "Minimum Viable Brilliance" complexity control principles. It is used for design and implementation decisions at all levels of projects, systems, modules, code, and functions, helping to prioritize core values, reduce unnecessary complexity, and avoid over-design. Keywords: KISS, simplification, focus, complexity control, Minimum Viable Brilliance.
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.
Generate exactly 5 probability-weighted options for a specific decision point. Forces unconventional alternatives beyond safe defaults. For quick decision-point analysis, NOT full design exploration (use brainstorming for that). Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".
Know the boundaries of your expertise and operate within them. Use when evaluating opportunities, making decisions outside your domain, or assessing when to defer to experts.
Think beyond immediate consequences to understand the chain reactions of decisions. Master Howard Marks' investment framework for seeing what others miss. Use when: **Strategic decisions** where long-term consequences matter; **Policy/rule changes** that will trigger behavioral responses; **Competitive moves** to anticipate market reactions; **Product decisions** where user behavior may shift; **Investment analysis** to see past obvious conclusions
Stress-test a plan or design through structured interviewing. Use when the user wants to pressure-test a plan, resolve design decisions, or mentions "grill me".
Use historical analogies to inform strategic decisions by identifying structural similarities and differences between past and present situations. Use this skill when the user draws on historical precedent to justify a strategy, needs to evaluate whether a historical comparison is valid, or wants to learn from past events — even if they say 'this is like the dotcom bubble', 'history repeats itself', or 'what can we learn from how X handled this'.
Apply real options analysis to value managerial flexibility embedded in investment decisions. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate projects with significant uncertainty and flexibility, assess the value of deferring or expanding investments, compare traditional NPV with expanded NPV, or when they ask 'should we wait to invest', 'what is the option to abandon worth', or 'why does NPV undervalue this project'.
Multi-agent board meeting protocol for strategic decisions. Runs a structured 6-phase deliberation: context loading, independent C-suite contributions (isolated, no cross-pollination), critic analysis, synthesis, founder review, and decision extraction. Use when the user invokes /cs:board, calls a board meeting, or wants structured multi-perspective executive deliberation on a strategic question.