Loading...
Loading...
Found 19 Skills
Cross-meeting archaeology skill. Consumes multiple meeting recaps (or raw notes) over a period and surfaces patterns invisible in any single meeting. Shows how decisions evolved, who has been saying what, where threads are stalling, and where contradictions have emerged. Produces a plain-text timeline, themes with confidence markers, stakeholder position tracking, consolidated decision list, contradiction flags, open items, narrative summary, and prioritized follow-ups.
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.
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.
Surfaces and assesses hidden assumptions behind decisions, designs, or recurring patterns — use when reviewing a design before committing, reflecting on recurring problems, or questioning why the same kinds of issues keep appearing
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.
Run a simulated meeting with multiple expert personas to analyze a subject from diverse perspectives, reach a decision, and propose a solution before implementation. Optionally posts the meeting analysis to a linked GitLab or GitHub issue.
Annie Duke's Decision Quality framework applied to a business decision. Spawns a team of specialist agents — Resulting Auditor, Calibrator, Pre-Mortem Analyst, Quit Strategist, Process Architect — who each apply a distinct lens from Duke's framework to evaluate whether a decision is sound regardless of outcome. The lead synthesizes into a stacking analysis: which biases are operating, which process flaws exist, and the honest Duke verdict. Use when the user says "duke this", "is this a good bet", "should I quit", "evaluate this decision", or faces any high-stakes choice under uncertainty and wants rigorous decision-process analysis. Works as a standalone analysis or after /office-hours.