Plan a new project with limited resources by checking demand and conditions, choosing a small starting point that supports reuse and expansion, and defining three steps with success criteria before moving into broader work.
星火燎原：从零起步、资源极少时，先评估客观条件，选定一个能站稳、能复用、能扩展的"根据地"（最小切入点），扎根后再逐步扩张，拒绝四处出击的流寇主义。当启动新项目、做 MVP / pilot、面对宏大目标不知从何下手、或做了很多零散事却没有积累时触发；项目已有稳固基础、只是修改现有系统时不触发。
English: Spark a prairie fire. When starting from almost nothing, assess the conditions, choose one base area (a minimal foothold that can hold, be reused, and expand), dig in, then grow step by step instead of scattering effort. Trigger for new projects, MVPs, pilots, daunting goals with no obvious first step, or busy work that accumulates nothing; skip when a solid base already exists or the task modifies an existing system.
Run score Not tested
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
"现在虽只一点小小的力量，但是它的发展会是很快的。" —— 《星星之火，可以燎原》
小不等于没前途；关键是建根据地，不做流寇。
用：
不用：
investigation-first 或调整方向，不急于动手。条件评估：需求真实 [是 / 否 / 不确定]，依据 ……；可依托基础 ……；主要障碍 ……
结论：具备发展条件 / 条件不足，需先 ……
根据地：……
- 我在这里的优势：……
- 能站稳的证据：……
- 向外扩展的路径：……
路线图：
第 1 步：…… → 成功标志：……
第 2 步：…… → 成功标志：……（第 1 步稳固后）
第 3 步：…… → 成功标志：……（第 2 步稳固后）
concentrate-forcespractice-cognitionprotracted-strategy原著依据：original-texts.md
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Guide an agent to ground judgments in evidence, separate facts from inferences and unknowns, verify results, and diagnose failures. It also selects a suitable methodology skill when investigation, prioritization, validation, or another structured approach would help.
Organize competing tasks by impact, difficulty, and dependencies, then choose one main priority. State what completion looks like, keep unrelated requests queued, and finish and verify the chosen task before reassessing the remaining work.
Break down a complex problem into opposing needs, identify the central conflict and its dominant side, then choose a response. The analysis also highlights changing priorities and tensions that need monitoring as work progresses.
Review completed work and its process against the original goals and acceptance criteria. Identify specific problems, root causes, and actionable fixes, while checking external criticism against evidence and correcting valid issues.
Investigate firsthand sources before making a judgment or recommendation. Separate verified facts, reasoned inferences, and unknowns, document their sources, and produce a conclusion that explains the current situation, constraints, and remaining uncertainty.
Combine feedback from users, code, logs, and runtime results into a reasoned plan. Separate agreement from conflicting evidence, explain the judgment, and validate it with the people or systems that supplied the original information.