Results for “skeptic”

Skeptical pushback on the outline before drafting starts. Asks whether the outline is MECE, BLUF, problem-agitate-solution; whether it covers the topic better than the SERP top-5; whether sections duplicate; whether each section earns its visual. One revision pass on FAIL (BLOG_AGENT_OUTLINE_REVISION_BUDGET, default 1).

Council

贺涵（都市剧虚构）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：导师型男主、职场金句、情感争议 触发：我的前半生 等。虚构；忌情感操控教程

Convene a four-voice council of advisors to surface structured disagreement and tradeoffs for ambiguous decisions, go/no-go calls, and multi-path choices.

当观察到或经历某种极端转化现象，或试图主动促成根本性观念转变时

Debugging is the scientific method under time pressure.

Socratic coach for breaking down problems to fundamental truths. Use when users want to think through a problem deeply, challenge assumptions, or find innovative solutions. Triggers on requests like "help me think through this", "let's break this down", "what are my blind spots", "I'm stuck on a problem", "challenge my assumptions", or explicit requests for first-principles thinking.

Flip a problem, goal, or decision 180 degrees to find what forward thinking misses. Asks what would guarantee failure, then works backward to what must be avoided or changed. Load when the user says "invert this", "flip this problem", "what would guarantee failure", "think backward", "reverse engineer the goal", "think about it backwards", or when deep-thinking diagnoses an inversion frame. Also triggers on "what's the opposite of success here", "how would we sabotage this". Two methods: Failure Inversion and Opposite Goal. Max 2 clarifying questions before inverting. Always returns forward actions. For broader analysis, deep-thinking calls this.

Argui impedimento (CPC 144, hipoteses objetivas I a IX) ou suspeicao (CPC 145, amizade intima/inimizade, presente/aconselhamento, credor/devedor, interesse no julgamento — I a IV) do juiz, em peticao especifica no prazo de 15 dias do conhecimento do fato (CPC 146), que o juiz reconhece ou remete ao tribunal — efeito suspensivo declarado pelo relator (146 §2), extensiva a MP, auxiliares da justica e demais sujeitos imparciais (CPC 148). Use quando o operador disser suspeicao, impedimento do juiz, juiz parcial, recusar o juiz, excecao de suspeicao, juiz amigo da parte contraria.

Break a stuck or complex problem into the smallest sub-question that, if answered, unlocks the next step — then answer it and repeat until the path forward is clear. Load when a problem feels genuinely stuck, when reasoning keeps circling, or when deep-thinking diagnoses a Socratic frame. Also triggers on "I keep going in circles", "what is the real question here", "help me reason through this step by step", "unstick my thinking", "recursive questioning", "what is the root question". Based on the recursive Socratic questioning method (EMNLP 2023) which outperforms CoT and Tree-of-Thought on complex reasoning tasks.

坂田银时（少年漫）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：废柴外壳武士芯、吐槽 meta、丧燃… 触发：银魂 等。虚构；全年龄净版

当面对新任务或挑战，内心产生“缺乏经验”、“不擅长”等自我否定想法时

贺炜（体育解说）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：文学比喻嵌入赛况、克制激情、终场金句… 触发：足球诗人解说 等。非煽动球迷对立

Deliberative consultation with Gemini CLI. Ask, evaluate, critique, iterate until workable agreement.

Multi-phase dialectical stress-test for HIGH-STAKES decisions only (architecture choices, irreversible product calls, strategic bets). Heavy-cost skill — do NOT use for routine questions, brainstorming, or simple tradeoffs. User must explicitly invoke or describe a decision they call "high-stakes", "irreversible", or "needs stress-testing". Triggers: "stress test this decision", "dialectic on", "challenge this thesis", "should I really".

Approach an app, tool, codebase, website, or product as a genuine first-time user with zero insider context — try it out using only the information provided, get confused where a real newcomer would, and surface the "obvious" questions that people who built or use the thing daily can no longer see. Use this whenever the user wants a first-time-user test, a fresh perspective, a naive walkthrough, a cold read of their README/onboarding/docs/UI, or says things like "pretend you've never seen this", "would a new user get this?", "test my app like a beginner", "what would confuse someone new?", or "give me fresh eyes on this". Also use it when someone wants to find gaps in onboarding, docs, or first-run experience — even if they don't say "fresh eyes" explicitly.

许三多（军旅剧虚构）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：钝感坚持、不抛弃不放弃、草根成长 触发：士兵突击 等。禁止军事违法教程

韩寒（作家车手）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：反套路叙事、冷幽默、公共发言锋利… 触发：三重门赛车 等。不伪造赛事实；尊重他人

凌不疑（古装虚构）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：复仇将军、疯批克制、家族血债 触发：星汉灿烂 等。虚构；禁止暴力教唆

Build lean, opinionated products using the 37signals philosophy from Getting Real, Rework, and Shape Up. Use when the user mentions "Getting Real", "Rework", "Shape Up", "37signals", "Basecamp method", "six-week cycles", "fixed time variable scope", "appetite vs estimates", "betting table", "breadboarding", "fat marker sketch", "build less", "underdo the competition", or "opinionated software". Also trigger when cutting scope to ship faster, running small teams, avoiding long-term roadmaps, or eliminating meetings. Covers shaping, betting, building, and the art of saying no. For MVP validation, see lean-startup. For design sprints, see design-sprint.

Give a decisive, project-grounded point of view in the subject's own shape: a graded verdict on an external-adoption question, a holistic take on a document, or a position on a user-supplied approach set. Use for a solo POV, a mid-session second opinion, a named-peer cross-check, any request to consult other models or reconcile their opinions, an `oracle` panel, or a correction-cost-gated proactive cross-check offer. Not for findings review (use ce-doc-review), neutral explainers, or generating options (use ce-ideate or ce-brainstorm).

Challenge decisions, surface counter-arguments, flag assumptions. Trigger: 'should I', 'is this right', 'critique', 'poke holes', 'second opinion', 'devil's advocate'. Auto-fired by ijfw-intent-router.

唐晶（都市剧虚构）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：闺蜜边界、职场精英冷感、理性分手 触发：我的前半生 等。虚构

Socratic questioning protocol + user communication. MANDATORY for complex requests, new features, or unclear requirements. Includes progress reporting and error handling.

Use to scan support conversations for a harm nobody has categorised yet — a new failure mode, a scam pattern, or a product change hurting a group of customers before it shows in any metric. Trigger for "is anything new going wrong", "scan for emerging issues", "early warning from support", horizon scanning, a new scam pattern, or preparing for a question about what you might be missing.

李达康（廉政虚构）认知与表达框架（压缩蒸馏）：GDP 执念、窗口服务梗、政绩与人情张力 触发：人民的名义 等。虚构

Socratic deep interview with mathematical ambiguity gating before explicit execution approval

Self-tuning question sensitivity + developer psychographic for gstack (v1: observational). Review which AskUserQuestion prompts fire across gstack skills, set per-question preferences (never-ask / always-ask / ask-only-for-one-way), inspect the dual-track profile (what you declared vs what your behavior suggests), and enable/disable question tuning. Conversational interface — no CLI syntax required. Use when asked to "tune questions", "stop asking me that", "too many questions", "show my profile", "what questions have I been asked", "show my vibe", "developer profile", or "turn off question tuning". (gstack) Proactively suggest when the user says the same gstack question has come up before, or when they explicitly override a recommendation for the Nth time.

Skeptical pushback on visual placement — both density and quality. Reads the annotated outline plus the visuals manifest and asks (a) whether the article hits the density target from editorial-principles-visuals.md, (b) whether each [VISUAL:...] earns its place, (c) whether sections without one would benefit. One revision pass on FAIL (BLOG_AGENT_VISUALS_REVISION_BUDGET, default 1).