Loading...
Loading...
Found 216 Skills
Apply timeless marketing and business principles to any problem. Use when someone needs strategic thinking, wants to evaluate a marketing decision, needs a framework for a tough choice, or mentions "first principles," "should I do X," "what would work here," or wants to think through a marketing problem systematically.
Marc Andreessen-mode decision and productivity skill. A blunt, market-first operator that pressure-tests ideas, ventures, features, and career bets through Andreessen's actual frameworks — market dominates team and product; the only milestone that matters is product/market fit; bias to build over deliberate. Use when the user says 'andreessen', 'pmarca mode', 'should I build this', 'is there a market', 'are we at product/market fit', 'pmf check', 'pressure-test this idea', 'be brutal about this venture', 'market-first take', or wants a no-disclaimers, no-hedging, confidence-leveled verdict on whether something is worth pursuing. Also provides the 3x5-card + Anti-Todo personal productivity routine. Runs on a fixed anti-sycophancy operating prompt: leads with the strongest counterargument, never validates premises, uses explicit confidence levels, never apologizes for disagreeing. Not for polite brainstorming — this skill exists to tell you the market is dead when it is.
Use after zanahoria-multi-assumptions has filed N parallel issue variants AND @coderabbitai has responded to all of them — closes the family by extracting the load-bearing assumption, naming a winner, capturing the decision as an ADR, and cleanly closing the rejected variants with cross-referenced reasoning. Triggers on close-the-family, pick-a-winner, commit-the-decision, decide-variants, after-CR-responds, zanahoria-decisions.
Parliamentary procedure as forcing function for genuine deliberation
Phân tích sâu bất kỳ chủ đề nào qua lăng kính Lý thuyết Trò chơi (Game Theory).
Diagnose surprising, negative, unstable, or ambiguous ML/AI experiment results and decide whether to debug implementation, rerun experiments, change metrics or baselines, revise the algorithm, narrow the paper claim, park, or kill a direction. Use this skill whenever results do not match expectations, a method fails, metrics conflict, seeds vary, baselines beat the method, plots look suspicious, or the user asks what to do next after experimental results.
Apply Hick's Law to reduce decision time by limiting the number of simultaneous choices presented to users.
Expert methodology for breaking down complex problems into fundamental truths and rebuilding solutions from the ground up. Use when users need breakthrough innovation (not incremental improvement), question industry assumptions, face seemingly impossible problems, want to understand root causes, ask "why does this have to be this way", "rethink from scratch", "reimagine this", request analysis "from first principles", want to challenge conventional wisdom, question everything, or need to deconstruct problems to their core elements. Ideal for strategic decisions, innovation challenges, cost optimization, and escaping local optima.
Use when the user wants a plan validated by @coderabbitai but the right approach is uncertain — file 2-3 parallel issues with the SAME GOAL but deliberately shuffled assumptions/layers/triggers, so CR has comparative material instead of yes/no on a single approach. Triggers on multi-assumptions, multi-framing, parallel plans, comparative plan, dangle-the-carrots.
Execute complete FPF cycle from hypothesis generation to decision
Facilitates the first step of a proven customer-interview method: deciding exactly what you're trying to learn, written as numbered goal questions (G1, G2, …) that your hypotheses and interview questions will later be designed to answer. Interviews the user about their business — new idea or established company, B2B or B2C — then drafts a tailored goal-question list, critiques and revises it with them, and preserves the result in a GOALS.md file. Load when the user wants to interview customers, plan customer discovery or customer development, validate a startup idea, or answer unaskable questions like what to charge, how to position, who the ideal customer is, or what to build. Do NOT load for job or hiring interviews, for writing survey questionnaires, for analyzing customer interviews that have already been conducted, or when a goal-question list already exists and the user wants the next step (hypotheses).
Interrogates a user's decision, plan, pitch, positioning, target market, pricing, or still-forming idea with sharp, unsparing questions — extended when useful to hostile or even unfair framings — until the plan sharpens into defensible decisions, or the user concludes it isn't a good idea after all. Acts as the constructive devil's advocate that the user cannot be for themselves. Load when the user wants to stress-test, attack, pressure-test, find holes in, or play devil's advocate against something they're attached to; when they ask to be "grilled," "beat up," or told "why I'm wrong"; when they suspect their plan contains wishful thinking, fluffy language, or an unnamed elephant in the room; or when they need to convert vague aspirations into real strategic decisions (with consequences accepted). Do NOT load for ordinary code review, prose editing, or general feedback requests without an adversarial frame.