Loading...
Loading...
Found 19 Skills
Apply structured decision analysis using decision matrices, decision trees, expected value, and multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA). Use this skill when the user faces a complex decision with multiple options and criteria, needs to compare alternatives objectively, quantify risk vs reward, or facilitate group decisions — even if they say 'which option should we choose', 'help me decide', 'how do we compare these options', or 'what's the expected outcome'.
Run a second round on a contested question by circulating each subagent's independent proposal to the other authors and asking for structured pros and cons, then synthesize. Use this skill whenever you have multiple independent proposals or opinions on a contested decision — architecture tradeoffs, code review disagreements, design choices, competing root-cause theories — and want sharper analysis than you'd produce by synthesizing alone. Pairs naturally with the council and research skills; reach for it liberally whenever proposals diverge.
Apply public choice theory to analyze political decision-making as rational self-interested behavior. Use this skill when the user needs to evaluate government policy failures, rent-seeking costs, voting outcomes, or bureaucratic incentives, especially when the assumption of benevolent government is questionable.
When facing architectural decisions, technology choices, or strategic trade-offs, present options as a structured comparison and require explicit trade-off acknowledgment before proceeding. Triggers on words like "should we", "which approach", "what's the best way", or when Claude is about to recommend one approach over alternatives. Never present a single recommendation without showing viable alternatives first.
Challenge ideas, assumptions, and decisions by playing devil's advocate to identify weaknesses and prevent groupthink
Exposes Claude's reasoning chain as an auditable, decomposable artifact. Quick mode (default) gives assumption inventory + weakest-link in 2 stages. Full mode (--full) adds decision branching, confidence decomposition, and falsification conditions. Triggers on "왜 그렇게 생각해", "reasoning", "근거", "show your work", "어떻게 그 결론이", "trace", "판단 근거", "why do you think that".
Multidisciplinary analytical engine using Charlie Munger's latticework of mental models. Applies cross-disciplinary thinking (math, physics, biology, psychology, economics) to dissect life and business decisions. Use when user presents a decision problem, investment question, or complex analysis request requiring deep rational analysis.
Apply dual-process theory to diagnose whether judgments arise from fast intuitive (System 1) or slow analytical (System 2) processing and identify resulting cognitive biases. Use this skill when the user needs to explain why quick decisions go wrong, design choice architectures that account for cognitive defaults, audit decision processes for heuristic errors, or when they ask 'why do people misjudge probability', 'how to reduce snap-judgment errors', or 'when does intuition fail'.
Philip Tetlock's Superforecasting framework applied to a business decision, investment thesis, or strategic question. Spawns a team of specialist agents — Calibrator, Decomposer, Updater, Devil's Advocate, Scorekeeper — who each apply a different piece of the superforecasting methodology. The lead synthesizes into a calibrated probability estimate with Brier-scoreable predictions, explicit base rates, and an accountability structure for keeping score over time. Use when the user says "tetlock this", "what's the probability", "how confident should I be", "forecast this", "calibrate this", proposes a business thesis and wants probabilistic stress-testing, or wants to apply superforecasting to a decision. Works standalone or after /munger.
Practical application guide for HUMMBL's 6 transformations (Perspective, Inversion, Composition, Decomposition, Recursion, Meta-Systems). Includes when to use each transformation, combination patterns, analysis templates, output formats, real-world examples, and common pitfalls. Essential for applying mental models effectively in problem-solving and analysis.
Use when comparing multiple named alternatives across several criteria, need transparent trade-off analysis, making group decisions requiring alignment, choosing between vendors/tools/strategies, stakeholders need to see decision rationale, balancing competing priorities (cost vs quality vs speed), user mentions "which option should we choose", "compare alternatives", "evaluate vendors", "trade-offs", or when decision needs to be defensible and data-driven.
Domain-agnostic strategic decision analysis and wargaming. Auto-classifies scenario complexity: simple decisions get structured analysis (pre-mortem, ACH, decision trees); complex or adversarial scenarios get full multi-turn interactive wargames with AI-controlled actors, Monte Carlo outcome exploration, and structured adjudication. Generates visual dashboards and saves markdown decision journals. Use for business strategy, crisis management, competitive analysis, geopolitical scenarios, personal decisions, or any consequential choice under uncertainty. NOT for simple pros/cons lists, non-strategic decisions, or academic debate.