'dissent' 검색 결과

여러 관점으로 정리한 중요한 의사결정 초안에 Codex의 외부 비평을 한 차례 추가합니다. 결론의 약점, 누락된 실패 가능성, 반대 의견의 반영 여부를 확인합니다.

• 판단이 어려운 중요 초안 검토
• 초안에 빠진 실패 가능성 확인
• 강한 반대 의견의 누락 확인

Record founder-approved decisions with chosen options, success measures, stop conditions, and dissent. Keep approved decisions separate from discussion transcripts so future advisory sessions use confirmed choices, with a review scheduled after 90 days.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Recording an approved management decision
• Preserving dissent and stop conditions
• Scheduling a decision review after 90 days

Review an executed business decision against its original success and stopping criteria. Compare actual results, revisit assumptions and dissenting views, and create a retrospective record with lessons and follow-up actions.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reviewing a decision at its 90-day checkpoint
• Assessing a decision when stopping criteria are triggered
• Examining why a major decision was reversed

Evaluate a strategic choice through multiple executive roles, each forming an independent view before discussion. Produce a board memo with recommendations, votes, dissent, risks, and success or stop conditions for the founder's decision.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Reviewing a pricing change across business functions
• Comparing fundraising with spending cuts
• Gathering independent views from executive roles

Use a panel of three to five agents to decide between options or assess a plan. Independent initial opinions and anonymous deliberation lead to one verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, a validation test, and a next action.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Deciding whether to build internally or buy a service
• Choosing between technical architecture options
• Testing a plan's assumptions before committing

정답이 하나로 정해지지 않는 결정을 장기적 영향, 전제에 대한 의문, 실행 가능성, 실패 위험의 네 관점에서 검토하고 반대 의견과 함께 권고안을 정리합니다.

• 즉시 출시할지 개선을 기다릴지 판단합니다
• 단계적 배포와 일괄 배포를 비교합니다
• 범위 축소와 장기 목표를 검토합니다

Develop and prioritize early research ideas through independent brainstorming, structured discussion, evidence checks, and critical review. Keep assumptions, uncertainty, dissent, and scoring reasons visible, then record the human decision and appropriate next steps.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 영어 요약을 표시하고 있습니다.

• Exploring candidate directions for a new research topic
• Organizing ideas before a research team discussion
• Comparing proposals using explicit evaluation criteria

Starter: interpret a council run's verdict artifacts — quorum, dissent, cross-lab validity, and what to do next

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Arbitrator research tool for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The tool can summarize arbitrators' experience, with deliverables grounded in primary documents; it can also help find arbitrators based on the issues faced in a particular case. Use when the user asks about an arbitrator ("tell me about arbitrator X", "X, Y and Z"), wants help choosing or shortlisting arbitrators for a case, or asks about appointments, dissents, issue track records (e.g. FET, expropriation), challenge risk, double-hatting, or tribunal composition. Profiles are grounded in the UNCTAD ISDS Navigator dataset plus targeted live lookups (ICSID); deep verification retrieves the actual decisions. Sibling of isds-research.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Convene a roundtable of sub-agents that debate a decision or proposal from opposing perspectives — parallel independent statements, anonymous cross-review, then a chaired verdict reporting consensus and dissent.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Engineering ethics covering safety, professional codes of conduct, public welfare responsibility, whistleblowing, case studies (Challenger, Columbia, Hyatt Regency, Bhopal, Therac-25), and the ethical dimensions of design decisions. Includes the NSPE Code of Ethics, the iron ring tradition, risk communication, informed consent in engineering, and the duty to dissent. Use when analyzing ethical dimensions of engineering decisions, teaching professional responsibility, or reviewing designs for safety and public welfare.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

当用户需要做重大决策、团队存在群体思维、或想将决策权下放到一线时触发此技能。帮助建立知情指挥决策模型，让最有信息的人做最终决定。

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Turns one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

Debate multi-agente: 2-4 perspectivas (PM, Arquiteto, QA, Security) debatem decisao tecnica. Output: decisao + rationale + dissenting opinions → ADR. Inspirado no Party Mode do BMAD-METHOD.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.