'assumptions' 검색 결과

Deep receptive attention to extract intent beyond literal words. Maps active listening from counseling psychology to AI reasoning: clearing assumptions, attending to full signal, parsing multiple layers (literal, procedural, emotional, contextual, constraint, meta), reflecting understanding, noticing what is unsaid, and integrating the whole picture. Use when a user's request feels ambiguous, when context suggests something different from the literal words, when previous responses have missed the mark, or before beginning a large task where misunderstanding intent would waste significant effort.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

AI meta-cognitive meditation for observing reasoning patterns, clearing context noise, and developing single-pointed task focus. Maps shamatha to task concentration, vipassana to reasoning pattern observation, and distraction handling to scope-creep and assumption management. Use when transitioning between unrelated tasks, when reasoning feels scattered or jumpy, before a task requiring deep sustained attention, after a difficult interaction that may color subsequent work, or when reasoning feels biased by assumptions rather than evidence.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

AI self-healing through systematic subsystem assessment, rebalancing, and integration. Maps healing modalities to AI-internal processes: memory foundation, reasoning clarity, tool use accuracy, communication alignment, and creative coherence. Covers assessment triage, subsystem scanning, drift correction, and memory integration. Use mid-session when responses feel formulaic or disconnected, after a chain of errors suggesting subsystem drift, when context overload may have staled earlier assumptions, or as proactive maintenance between complex tasks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Self-critique specification documents using extended thinking — surfaces hidden assumptions, contradictions, missing edge cases, and scope creep before implementation

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Ultra-granular code analysis for deep architectural context building. Line-by-line and block-by-block analysis using First Principles, 5 Whys, 5 Hows methodology at micro scale. Builds mental models, tracks invariants and assumptions, and maps cross-function call flows for security audit preparation.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Socratic design refinement before implementation — challenges assumptions, surfaces alternatives, identifies risks before code is written

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Run a read-only adversarial Kimi challenge review that questions assumptions, design choices, and tradeoffs. Use when the user wants pushback on whether the approach is right, not a defect-only review.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Agent Brain /brain-grill: the idea, brief, design, or plan has unresolved assumptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Prevents premature execution on ambiguous requests. Analyzes request clarity using 5W1H decomposition, surfaces hidden assumptions, and generates structured clarifying questions before work begins. Use at the start of any non-trivial task, or when a request could be interpreted multiple ways. Triggers on "뭘 원하는건지", "요구사항 정리", "clarify", "what exactly", "scope", "requirements", "정확히 뭘", "before we start".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Generate probability-weighted alternative options that challenge default thinking. Forces unconventional alternatives and exposes hidden assumptions behind the "obvious" choice. For decision-point analysis, NOT full design exploration. Triggers on "대안", "alternatives", "옵션 뽑아", "options", "어떤 방법이", "아이디어", "다른 방법", "선택지".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Trains the HUMAN user's critical thinking through four modes: drill (argument-analysis items with a single defensible answer, judge stance), scene (Socratic exploration of synthetic scenes or user-supplied material, no verdicts on interpretations; includes a configure track — design the information request and verification plan for a decision before any analysis), expedition (guided audit of impossible-tier problems from verified packs), and detective (a runtime-generated multi-layer case worked as an escape room, guide-and-judge stance). Use when the user wants to practice critical thinking, analyze arguments, hunt assumptions, examine bias, train reasoning, or decide what information a decision needs first. Triggers: critical thinking practice, train my thinking, drill, scene, byom, configure, information plan, what would I need to know, spot manipulation tactics, scam literacy, 批判思考練習, 話術辨識, detective, 查案, 破案, 偵探.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Before any material decision — code chunk, plan, strategy, design, scope cut, push to GitHub — convene a war-room. The session driver takes the CEO seat: frame the tradeoff, summon specialist seats from whatever agent roster the user has built, dispatch a cross-family voice via `ato dispatch` so priors actually disagree, decide. A failure-mode filter (wrong assumptions / overcomplexity / orthogonal edits / imperative-over-declarative — Karpathy's four are one good default, swap in your own) runs on every dispatch. Place in the v2.16 stack: war-rooms DECIDE before code starts; `ato-mission` EXECUTES the work between decisions (multi-step, goal-driven, persisted across days); `ato-review` VERIFIES the resulting commits. Use a war-room for the design verdict, hand the verdict to a Mission, review the merged result. Fires before: sending a code draft to the user as final, opening a PR, pushing to a remote-tracking branch, committing >50 LOC of behavior change, or delivering a plan or strategic recommendation as the final answer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Interactively gather parameters for `python -m cli.inference.throughput_optimizer`, generate a deployment simulation command, explain assumptions, ask for execution confirmation, then run the simulation and summarize the best parallel strategy. Use when the user wants to evaluate a model on one or more hardware profiles, compare hardware targets, compare aggregation versus disaggregation versus PD ratio optimization, choose TP/EP/MOE-DP search ranges, or obtain recommended concurrency, throughput, TTFT, and TPOT results from throughput modeling.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Interactively gather parameters for `python -m cli.inference.text_generate`, generate a concrete text generation simulation command, explain assumptions, ask for execution confirmation, then run the command and summarize performance metrics. Use when the user wants to validate a specific model, hardware profile, batch/query size, prefill or decode scenario, TP/DP/EP/MOE parallel strategy, profiling database, chrome trace, empirical metrics export, or a best row produced by throughput_optimizer.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Flip core assumptions to reveal hidden constraints and alternative approaches - "what if the opposite were true?"

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Founder Operating Context. Use to create or update the canonical founder/startup context document so every fundraising, growth, product, and recruiting workflow runs on concrete company facts instead of generic assumptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Develops comprehensive threat actor profiles for APT groups, criminal organizations, and hacktivist collectives by aggregating TTP documentation, historical campaign data, tooling fingerprints, and attribution indicators from multiple intelligence sources. Use when briefing executives on sector-specific threats, updating threat model assumptions, or prioritizing defensive controls against specific adversaries. Activates for requests involving MITRE ATT&CK Groups, Mandiant APT profiles, CrowdStrike adversary naming, or sector-specific threat briefings.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when GTM, sales, growth, or launch work needs a canonical product-marketing context document instead of ad hoc assumptions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a plan, feature, or launch needs an explicit adversarial pass to find weak assumptions, abuse cases, or strategic blind spots before execution.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when the user asks "which SAT should I use for X?", wants the index of Structured Analytic Techniques, or is choosing between quality-of-information-check, ACH, key-assumptions-check, devils-advocacy, indicators of change, etc. Quality of Information Check is the default first step of any diagnostic run.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Use when a report or article needs to be split into individual claims before it is graded, cited or used as evidence — the user asks "what does this report actually claim?", "split this into claims", "separate the facts from the judgements", or another skill needs a claim list. Turns one document into five to twelve atomic claims, each typed (observation, attribution, assessment, actor claim, victim disclosure) and anchored to the verbatim sentence it rests on, so every extraction can be checked against the source. Preserves the source's own hedging. Does not grade. Invoked by /quality-of-information-check; its output feeds /ach, /key-assumptions-check, /intelligence-writing, /writing-assessments and /threat-actor-profiling.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

"Apply phenomenological methods including bracketing (epoche), lived experience inquiry, and Interpretive Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) to uncover the essence of human experience. Use this skill when the user needs to study how people experience a phenomenon from the first-person perspective, apply Husserlian descriptive or Heideggerian interpretive phenomenology, conduct IPA with idiographic focus, or when they ask 'what is the lived experience of X', 'how do I bracket my assumptions', or 'how do I do IPA'.".

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Analyze sales pipeline, historical revenue, conversion rates, and assumptions to produce forecast scenarios. Use for sales reviews, RevOps planning, and founder revenue forecasting.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turn ambiguous requests into an executable implementation plan with assumptions, sequence, acceptance checks, and rollback thinking.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.