Use for ethical thinking, or when a plan could harm or unfairly burden people: "should we do this?", "is this fair?", "privacy or bias risk", "who gets hurt?". Maps stakeholders, harms, power and consent. Skip for legal advice, neutral fact lookups and implementation-only work.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Ethics is about conflicts between legitimate goods. End with transparent tradeoffs, not false certainty.
Skip: legal advice as such, neutral fact-finding with no values review requested, implementation-only work.
Who is affected: direct, indirect, future, non-human where ecology matters. For vulnerable groups, describe dependence, cognitive load or marginalization in plain words and one sentence on why that raises caution. Justify from the context; never stereotype.
Which values are in play (autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, dignity, solidarity, others)? Name at least one value tension: A vs B, and why both matter here.
Concrete harms and benefits. For each: how plausible, under what conditions, and how reversible. Separate predicted from observed when the user supplies history.
Who carries the burdens and who gets the benefits? Who can say no, and who bears the cost of errors? Check procedural fairness: voice, consent, appeal.
Two or more ethically distinct paths, including "do not proceed" when plausible:
Option: ... - Value fit: ... - Residual harm: ... - Safeguards: ...
A preferred option if the analysis supports one, or conditional guidance. Include the strongest reason against your recommendation and what to monitor if the plan proceeds.
Worked example: references/example.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.
Use for analytical thinking, or when a question needs breaking down and evidence: "why did metric X drop?", "what drives this?", "break this down", "what data do we need?". Builds a tree, hypotheses and evidence, ends with an answer and key uncertainty. Skip for quick verdicts.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use for creative thinking, or when the user wants many fresh options before choosing: "give me ideas", "brainstorm names", "other ways to do this", "think outside the box". Diverges first, then picks. Skip when one answer is wanted or the task is pure execution.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use for critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes", "sanity check", "devil's advocate", "red team this". Skip for execution-only tasks and wording edits.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use for design thinking, or when a product or service problem needs user understanding before solutions: "what do users really need?", "how might we...", "plan a discovery sprint", "validate this concept". Skip when the spec is frozen or the task is code maintenance.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use for Fermi estimation, or when a rough number is needed fast: "roughly how many...", "ballpark the cost", "estimate capacity or market size", "is this even feasible?". Decomposes, uses ranges and sanity-checks. Skip when exact data is available or a precise calculation is wanted.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Use for first principles thinking, or when the user questions an inherited default: "why do we do it this way?", "is this cost really necessary?", "should we copy what competitors do?". Strips analogies and rebuilds from fundamentals. Skip for convention-following checklists.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.