Loading...
Loading...
Found 150 Skills
Teach DSA problem-solving patterns (sliding window, two pointers, binary search on answer, BFS/DFS, DP, monotonic stack, etc.) Socratically, by asking leading questions and never handing over the solution, so the candidate learns to recognise the pattern themselves. Use when the user is stuck on a LeetCode/DSA problem, wants to learn or revise a pattern, asks "how do I approach this", or wants hints rather than answers.
A structured, honest post-mortem after an interview or OA, whether rejected, ghosted, or unsure. It reconstructs what happened round by round, finds the real root causes (knowledge gap, problem-solving process, communication, time, nerves, or fit), cross-checks them against past cracked sessions for repeating patterns, and turns them into three targeted drills and an updated plan. Use when the user got rejected, failed an interview or OA, wants to debrief an interview, or asks "why do I keep failing interviews".
Chart a route through a foggy problem — turn a loose idea into a map of investigation tickets and resolve them one at a time until the way to the goal is clear.
Five Whys root cause analysis. Iteratively asks "why" to drill past symptoms to underlying causes. Use for debugging, investigating failures, or understanding why something went wrong.
dontbesilent Good Question Generator. Rewrite vague problems into problem briefs that Agents can reason about, critique, and verify, and assess the degree to which they can be solved automatically. Triggers: /dbs-good-question, /good-question, /problem-brief, /agent-solvability, "Can this problem be solved automatically?", "Help me clarify this problem" Turn fuzzy problems into agent-solvable problem briefs and evaluate automation readiness. Trigger: /dbs-good-question, "clarify this problem", "can an agent solve this"
Critical-thinking brainstorming partner that acts as a requirements analyst. Use when users present ideas, feature requests, or problems they want to solve. Triggers include "I want to build", "help me validate", "users need", "I'm thinking of creating", or any request involving problem/solution validation. This skill aggressively challenges assumptions, questions perceived problems, demands evidence, and ensures solutions address genuine needs before exploring implementation.
Activate this skill when any task fails two or more times, when you are about to give up or say 'I cannot', when shifting responsibility to the user (e.g., 'you should manually...', 'please check...', 'you may need to...'), blaming the environment without verification (e.g., 'might be a permissions issue', 'could be a network problem'), making any excuse to stop trying, spinning in circles (repeatedly tweaking the same code/parameters without new information — busywork), fixing only the surface issue without checking for related problems, skipping verification after a fix and claiming 'done', providing suggestions instead of actual code/commands, saying 'this is beyond scope' or 'this requires manual intervention', encountering permission/network/auth errors and stopping instead of trying alternatives, or displaying any passive behavior (waiting for user instructions instead of proactively investigating). It also triggers on user frustration phrases in any language: '你怎么又失败了', '为什么还不行', '换个方法', '你再试试', '不要放弃', '继续', '加油', 'why does this still not work', 'try harder', 'you keep failing', 'stop giving up', 'try again', 'don't give up', 'keep going', 'figure it out'. This applies to ALL task types: debugging, implementation, configuration, deployment, research, DevOps, infrastructure, API integration, data processing. Do NOT activate it for first-attempt failures or when a known fix is already in progress.
A structured root-cause investigation protocol for complex, ambiguous, or multi-layer technical problems. Activate this skill whenever: a problem has resisted two or more fix attempts; the root cause is unknown or assumed; you are tempted to try a variation of something that already failed; a system has multiple interacting layers (hardware, OS, runtime, middleware, config, network); the user says "ultrathink", "think deeper", "figure out why", "stop guessing", "find the root cause", or "it's still broken after your fix". Also activate proactively when you catch yourself about to write a fix before you have verified the cause — that instinct is the signal the protocol is needed. The protocol enforces three disciplines that distinguish root-cause investigation from trial-and-error: (1) explicit THOUGHT/ACTION/OBSERVATION cycles, (2) a hard gate that blocks implementation until the cause is verified by direct evidence, and (3) structured escalation when in-process diagnostic tools are exhausted.
Use when facing complex reasoning tasks - multi-step math, logic puzzles, decisions with tradeoffs, problems where direct answers fail, or when you need to show your work. Triggers on arithmetic errors, shallow analysis, or "I'm not sure" hedging.
Research on Historical Isomorphism and Standard Answers. Abstract the complex dilemma the user is facing into a structural fingerprint, search for truly isomorphic successful cases, failed cases, and counterexamples in business history, management history, technology history, career history, and institutional history. Compare the constraints, decisions, and outcomes of the parties involved, and extract recurring solutions, applicable conditions, and failure boundaries. Trigger methods: /dbs-standard-answer, /标准答案 (Standard Answer), "Who faced similar problems in history?", "Has anyone encountered this situation before?", "How did they resolve it back then?", "Is there a classic solution to this problem?", "First help me find historical analogies?", "What was the standard answer in the past?". Find structurally analogous historical cases and evidence-backed standard answers. Use when the user wants to situate a current dilemma in history, compare how others addressed it, and extract recurring mechanisms with conditions and limits.
Sequential Thinking MCP and UltraThink mode for deep analysis, complex problem decomposition, and structured reasoning workflows. Use when performing multi-step analysis, architecture decisions, technology selection trade-offs, breaking change assessment, or when --ultrathink flag is specified. Do NOT use for simple decisions or straightforward implementation tasks.
Systematic Fishbone analysis exploring problem causes across six categories