Loading...
Loading...
Found 10 Skills
Multi-perspective in-depth analysis. Use multiple Sub-agents to act as consultants with different thinking frameworks, conduct independent analysis on the same material, then cross-summarize consensus and differences, and produce a structured diagnostic report. Triggered when the user says "Help me with multi-perspective analysis", "Multi-dimensional analysis", "Look at it from multiple perspectives", or "Help me diagnose it".
Analyze propositions from multiple expert perspectives. Dynamically generates 4-6 relevant expert roles, then performs validation, comprehensive analysis, or debate-style examination. Use when user wants to examine ideas critically, find blindspots, or explore different viewpoints on a topic.
Adopt multiple expert personas sequentially for complex problem analysis from diverse perspectives. Single-agent only — do NOT spawn sub-agents.
Use when facing hard architectural decisions, multiple valid approaches exist, need diverse perspectives before committing, or want M-of-N synthesis on complex problems
Multi-perspective adversarial review. 4 Agents are spawned in parallel (full mode), each identifying issues from different perspectives, and the main thread makes a comprehensive ruling. Trigger methods: /story-review, /审查, "审查一下", "帮我审一下"
Split one artifact — a claim, plan, or file — across 2 to 5 independent lenses, one per genuinely distinct failure mode (correctness, security, readability, cost, adversarial-user), and return their convergence: where they agree, where they disagree, and the single next question that resolves the disagreement. Use when one reviewer isn't enough because the failure modes are heterogeneous, or a claim looks strong to its author and needs cross-lens pressure before it ships.
Multi-perspective adversarial review. Full/lean modes spawn in parallel when reviewer agents are deployed; automatically degrade to solo mode when agents are missing/abnormal or spawn fails; use built-in rubric fallback when reference files are unreadable. Trigger methods: /story-review, /审查, "审查一下", "帮我审一下"
Run a structured multi-perspective council on a hard decision, design choice, debugging question, strategy problem, or tradeoff. Use when the user wants multiple viewpoints, explicit cross-examination, and a compact final verdict.
Multi-perspective deliberation on a question. Use when the user says "get perspectives on", "multiple viewpoints", "council on this", "devil's advocate", "stress test this idea", "red team this", "poke holes in", "second opinion on", "what am I missing", or wants multi-perspective analysis of a decision, design, or strategy.
Eva Lens 2.2.8: Entry for Multi-Perspective and Disciplinary Divergence. It is used to place unformed topics, phenomena or questions into the most explanatory disciplines to open up new perspectives, or to conduct four-perspective quick supplementation, single-perspective targeted analysis, or in-depth review on formed ideas, topics, titles, scripts, review conclusions, business judgments and plans. Triggers: /eva-lens, Eva Lens, "Take a look with Lens", disciplinary divergence, interdisciplinary divergence, "View from perspectives of sociology, psychology, economics, etc.", "Help me open up more explanatory mechanisms", multi-perspective, "View from different perspectives", "Fill in blind spots", reader perspective, opponent perspective, industry reality perspective, creator perspective, in-depth review, in-depth deduction, find counterexamples, check weak premises, find falsification conditions, conduct counterfactual analysis, reverse review current judgments. General requests like "Help me think", "Chat with me" are still handled by Eva Think. Lens does not file records, save data, or perform persona simulation or character discussions.