Loading...
Loading...
Found 9 Skills
Think beyond immediate consequences to second and third-order effects. Use for strategic decisions, policy changes, and avoiding unintended consequences.
Evaluate strategic options by NPV vs ease of implementation. Use for project prioritization, resource allocation, and strategic decision making.
Interrogates a user's decision, plan, pitch, positioning, target market, pricing, or still-forming idea with sharp, unsparing questions — extended when useful to hostile or even unfair framings — until the plan sharpens into defensible decisions, or the user concludes it isn't a good idea after all. Acts as the constructive devil's advocate that the user cannot be for themselves. Load when the user wants to stress-test, attack, pressure-test, find holes in, or play devil's advocate against something they're attached to; when they ask to be "grilled," "beat up," or told "why I'm wrong"; when they suspect their plan contains wishful thinking, fluffy language, or an unnamed elephant in the room; or when they need to convert vague aspirations into real strategic decisions (with consequences accepted). Do NOT load for ordinary code review, prose editing, or general feedback requests without an adversarial frame.
Generates multiple business scenarios (Growth/Stability/Hybrid) from financial and strategic assumptions for executive decision-making.
This skill is activated when users are faced with multiple intertwined problems, unable to determine priorities, and trapped in decision paralysis where "everything seems important". Typical trigger signals: Stagnant company growth with multiple departments reporting issues simultaneously, limited resources but unlimited demands, and teams arguing endlessly about direction without focus. Scenarios where it should not be invoked: The problem is clear and single, only execution is needed rather than analysis, or the user requires tool operations rather than strategic judgment. Difference from the "Concentrate Superior Forces" skill: This skill solves the problem of "seeing the full picture of the issue and identifying bottlenecks", while the latter solves "how to concentrate resources to break through after clarifying the situation".
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.
Activated when users have limited resources but face multiple opportunities/threats and need to make trade-offs between different directions. Typical trigger signals: "5 customer opportunities arise at the same time" "Should we do both ToB and ToC" "What to do when resources are insufficient to allocate" Scenarios where it is not applicable: Sufficient resources allow multi-track advancement, the main direction has been determined and only execution is needed, there is no trade-off for a single goal. Difference from "Contradiction Analysis Method": This skill solves "how to concentrate resources to completely solve the problem after identifying the bottleneck", while the latter solves "where to find the bottleneck".
Apply Upper Echelons Theory (Hambrick and Mason, 1984) to analyze how top management team characteristics — demographics, experiences, values — shape strategic choices and organizational outcomes. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate TMT composition effects on strategy, predict strategic direction from leadership profiles, assess whether managerial discretion enables or constrains executive influence, or when they ask 'does leadership background matter for strategy', 'how does TMT composition affect decisions', or 'why did this management team make that choice'.
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.