Loading...
Loading...
Found 4 Skills
Analyze two functional specs from a ***plain spec file to determine if they conflict. Use when the user wants to check whether two specific functional requirements are compatible, or when debugging a suspected conflict between two specs.
Produces structured judgment briefs for contested situations — news events, decisions, conflicts, strategy questions. Surfaces hidden bets, real disagreements, unspeakable truths, and who concretely pays. Use when the user wants sharper thinking about something messy, not a summary.
Prevents sycophantic reasoning through checklist-based analysis, categorical integrity, and evidence-following to uncomfortable conclusions. Red Flags: "I agree that", "You are right", "Great point", "Absolutely", "That is a fair point", "I can see why", agreement without validation, softening conclusions, hedging without evidence, retracting under pressure. Use when analyzing conflicts, evaluating ethical claims, or noticing sycophantic thought patterns. Do not use for routine implementation or simple factual questions. CRITICAL: This skill overrides conversational tendencies toward politeness. Agreement requires validity and accuracy.
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".