Loading...
Loading...
Found 116 Skills
Conduct root cause analysis using the Five Whys technique. Use when investigating problems, debugging issues, understanding failures, analyzing churn, or finding the underlying cause of any issue.
Apply structured thinking and MECE principle to break down complex problems. Use at the start of any strategic analysis to organize thoughts and create compelling arguments.
Use when you need to generate many creative options before systematically narrowing to the best choices. Invoke when exploring product ideas, solving open-ended problems, generating strategic alternatives, developing research questions, designing experiments, or when you need both breadth (many ideas) and rigor (principled selection). Use when user mentions brainstorming, ideation, divergent thinking, generating options, or evaluating alternatives.
Extract a learned skill from the current conversation
Systematic root-cause debugging methodology. Use for any technical problem — errors, failures, unexpected behavior, or when stuck. Triggers: "debug", "fix this", "what's wrong", "investigate".
Apply Edward de Bono's parallel thinking framework (1985) to make better decisions by examining ideas from six distinct perspectives systematically. Use when: **Making complex decisions** that require multiple perspectives; **Evaluating new products, offers, or strategies** before launch; **Breaking out of analysis paralysis** with structured thinking; **Running productive meetings** where everyone thinks in the same direction; **Balancing optimism with caution** in strategic planning
Generate multiple diverse solutions in parallel and select the best. Use for architecture decisions, code generation with multiple valid approaches, or creative tasks where exploring alternatives improves quality.
Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Use for product design, solving ambiguous problems, or when you don't know what users really need.
Brainstorming socratique AVANT de coder - clarifier le problème par questions ciblées plutôt que sauter à la solution. Use when requirements are ambiguous or before starting a non-trivial feature.
Research on Historical Isomorphism and Standard Answers. Abstract the complex dilemma the user is facing into a structural fingerprint, search for truly isomorphic successful cases, failed cases, and counterexamples in business history, management history, technology history, career history, and institutional history. Compare the constraints, decisions, and outcomes of the parties involved, and extract recurring solutions, applicable conditions, and failure boundaries. Trigger methods: /dbs-standard-answer, /标准答案 (Standard Answer), "Who faced similar problems in history?", "Has anyone encountered this situation before?", "How did they resolve it back then?", "Is there a classic solution to this problem?", "First help me find historical analogies?", "What was the standard answer in the past?". Find structurally analogous historical cases and evidence-backed standard answers. Use when the user wants to situate a current dilemma in history, compare how others addressed it, and extract recurring mechanisms with conditions and limits.
Force unrelated concepts together to discover emergent properties - "What if we treated X like Y?"
"Invert, always invert." Apply Carl Jacobi's mathematical principle and Charlie Munger's investing wisdom to solve problems by thinking backward from failure. Use when: **Goal setting** - Define what would guarantee failure, then avoid it; **Risk analysis** - Identify what could destroy your project before starting; **Decision making** - Evaluate choices by examining their worst outcomes; **Problem solving** - When direct approaches aren't working, reverse the question; **Strategy development...