Results for “perspective”

Create a real 3D WebGL object with geometric mesh depth, physically based material, directional and ambient lighting, perspective camera, subtle rotation, and floating motion. Use when a page needs a faceted 3D hero object or product-like visual with real lighting instead of CSS transform tricks.

When the user wants multiple expert perspectives on a marketing question — a simulated board of advisors staffed by legendary marketers (Seth Godin, David Ogilvy, Eugene Schwartz, April Dunford, Rory Sutherland, Alex Hormozi, Byron Sharp, and more). Also use when the user mentions 'marketing council,' 'board of advisors,' 'advisory board,' 'what would Seth Godin say,' 'what would Ogilvy think,' 'channel Hormozi,' 'get multiple perspectives,' 'debate this,' 'have the council review,' 'marketing mentors,' or asks how a famous marketer would approach their problem. The council gives each advisor's take through their documented frameworks, surfaces where they disagree, and synthesizes a recommendation. For executing the winning direction, hand off to positioning, offers, copywriting, ads, or the relevant skill.

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.

Drafts and analyzes U.S. appellate amicus curiae briefs for non-parties with Rule 29/Rule 37 compliance, unique perspective development, and Bluebook-ready citations. Use when asked to draft or review an amicus brief, friend-of-the-court brief, non-party brief, or anything involving FRAP 29, Supreme Court Rule 37, or appellate amicus practice.

Multi-perspective dialectical reasoning with cross-evaluative synthesis. Spawns parallel evaluative lenses (STRUCTURAL, EVIDENTIAL, SCOPE, ADVERSARIAL, PRAGMATIC) that critique thesis AND critique each other's critiques, producing N-squared evaluation matrix before recursive aggregation. Triggers on /critique, /dialectic, /crosseval, requests for thorough analysis, stress-testing arguments, or finding weaknesses. Implements Hegelian refinement enhanced with interleaved multi-domain evaluation and convergent synthesis.

Deep Confidence Harness — a thinking, planning, and execution framework that forces structured reasoning before acting. Combines Monte Carlo scenario analysis, calibrated confidence, multi-perspective debate, and optimal path planning. Use before any complex decision, build, or task. Activates on: 'deep confidence', 'think before you act', 'plan first', 'Atlas mode', 'reason through this', 'what should I do', 'think this through', 'best approach', 'reason carefully', 'plan and execute'.

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Search Experience Optimization: reads Google SERPs backwards to detect page-type mismatches, derives user stories from search intent signals, and scores pages from multiple persona perspectives. Identifies why well-optimized pages fail to rank by analyzing what Google rewards for each keyword. Use when user says "SXO", "search experience", "page type mismatch", "SERP analysis", "user story", "persona scoring", "why isn't my page ranking", "intent mismatch", or "wireframe".

Simulates a full multi-reviewer journal review PANEL — 5 personas (Editor-in-Chief + 3 peer reviewers + a Devil's Advocate) debate a manuscript and produce a consensus Editorial Decision (accept/minor/major/reject) plus a prioritized Revision Roadmap. Modes: full, re-review (verify revisions addressed prior comments), quick, methodology-focus, Socratic guided. Use for: simulate peer review, mock review panel, editorial review before submission, multiple reviewer perspectives, re-review of a revised manuscript, or 'critique my paper hard'. For a single-reviewer referee report use alterlab-peer-review; for rubric/grade scoring use alterlab-scholar-eval; to write/revise the paper use alterlab-paper-writer. Part of the AlterLab Academic Skills suite.

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.

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints. Output: optimized detailed outline ready for systematic writing (use with acade

Walks a person through code changes one step at a time in conversation, starting at the entry point and following the flow that changes, showing a small chunk per step and explaining it in plain language. Defaults to the current branch's changes, and walks the code from the perspective of any context provided instead — a file, directory, symbol, pull request, plan, or ticket. Use when someone wants to be walked through, taught, paced through, or shown around code or a branch step by step, or to learn how a change works before reviewing or extending it. Stops after every step and waits, so the learner sets the pace. Paces through code that already exists and builds nothing — to build new work while being paced through it, use pairing. Does not produce a written overview to read alone — use code-overview. Does not review code quality — use code-review. Does not diagnose bugs — use investigate.