「decision」の検索結果

Stress-test a plan, decision, or idea as a dependency-aware design tree. Use for grill-me requests, assumption audits, and decision clarification before implementation.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Integration of Kahneman's heuristics research with Klein's expertise studies on intuitive decision-making

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Decision-theoretic framework for agents embedded within the environments they model and act upon

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Operational decision frameworks: triage, escalation, case management, billing ops. Use for 'how to handle X cases', 'build triage', 'escalation protocol'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Multi-agent collaboration session. Brings 2-4 agent perspectives into one discussion for architecture decisions and trade-off analysis. Use when asked "should we X or Y?", "let's discuss", or "design review".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Runtime router for context decisions during a task — decide read-more / stop / ask / assume / delegate, pick a minimal read-set, and time compaction. Front-page mental model is Write / Select / Compress / Isolate; a lazy pattern index routes to 25 context-engineering patterns, one reference per decision. Use when context is near budget, a long session is degrading, you must choose what to read for a task, or you are deciding /compact vs /clear vs a sub-agent. NOT for structural .claude/ overhead audits (see mk:context-audit); NOT for owning persistence (see mk:memory); NOT for USD cost (see mk:budget).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Relentlessly interview the user about THEIR plan or design — one question at a time — resolving each branch of a decision tree until shared understanding. Claude is the interviewer; the user is the interviewee. Triggers on "grill me", "stress-test this plan", "get grilled on my design", "interrogate my plan". Checkpoints every answer to docs/knowledge/<slug>.md so progress survives a context-window reset. Flags knowledge the user cannot answer as a gap to chase. Do NOT use to PROPOSE solutions or compare approaches (→ mk:brainstorming). Do NOT use to validate "is this worth building?" (→ mk:office-hours). Do NOT use when Claude should ANSWER questions about the repo (→ mk:ask-me). Do NOT use for a one-shot review of an existing plan (→ mk:plan-ceo-review). Do NOT use to apply named reasoning lenses to findings (→ mk:elicit).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

This skill provides a shared decision-making framework for selecting second-line therapies in patients with ACTH-dependent Cushing's syndrome who have persistent hypercortisolism after transsphenoidal surgery or for whom surgery is not feasible. Clinical triggers include "failed TSS", "non-curative pituitary surgery", "persistent UFC elevation post-op", and "surgery contraindicated".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Grilling session that challenges your plan against the existing domain model, sharpens terminology, and updates documentation (CONTEXT.md, ADRs) inline as decisions crystallise. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan against their project's language and documented decisions.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Records decisions and documentation. Use when making architectural decisions, changing public APIs, shipping features, or when you need to record context that future engineers and agents will need to understand the codebase.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Validates a plan before committing to it - checks whether the ranking survives the assumptions, finds the most likely way it fails, and makes the trade-offs explicit via a Pareto frontier instead of an invented single score. Use before a launch, price change, migration, infrastructure change or major commitment, when running a premortem, when two objectives conflict, or when a decision depends on an assumption nobody has tested.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Prices research, tests, surveys, dashboards and experiments before running them, by computing how much the result would raise expected utility - which is zero whenever no outcome would change the decision. Use when someone proposes an A/B test, user survey, market study, competitor analysis, analytics build, consultant, pilot, or "let's gather more data", and when deciding how large a study needs to be.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Find, build, evaluate, and improve systems using decision models. Use for bounded classification, routing, ranking, Choice/Score/Noul, decision-model composition, evaluation harnesses, prompt/program hill climbing, and Software 3.0 workflows across software, business, organizations, and life. Separate models, code, and human judgment. TypeSafe Jev is the default hosted exemplar. Not for straightforward arithmetic, prose rewriting, or provider setup alone.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Architecture decisions, trade-off analysis, and ADR authoring. Trigger when a significant technical decision needs to be made, documented, and owned — not when an implementation detail needs a choice.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use to audit a past architectural decision — did the chosen option hold up, what assumptions drifted, should the ADR be superseded? Backward review only; does not lock new choices.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when capturing an architectural decision — file naming, next ADR number, Status / Context / Decision / Consequences, index regen; fires even without saying 'ADR'.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

[Process] Use when the developer wants something explained or taught, or wants to know HOW TO REVIEW a change — by default the current working tasks + changes in context, or whatever the prompt names (a plan, a subsystem, a decision, a concept, a bug). AI derives WHAT to explain from the prompt and ALWAYS delivers a teacher-and-coach review guide, high level first then detail: what was done, a VISUAL MAP (system flowchart, domain ERD, sequence diagrams), the user stories and business rules with their REAL test-case IDs, a REVIEW PATH naming which files to open first and in what order with an exit criterion per stage, the technical concepts needed to follow it, how it works, why THIS solution, every alternative option with pros/cons, the trade-offs accepted, the blast radius, HOW TO TEST AND DEMO the change, the developer's decision levers, and written challenge prompts that provoke the reader to pressure-test the work. Works at ANY scope — from one line of code to the whole project: it SIZES the target into a scope tier, DECOMPOSES a large one into understanding groups, BREAKS the work into tasks before the first deep read, and ACCUMULATES the report group by group on disk so a huge explanation stays complete instead of thinning out. Writes the full report to a single combined markdown file (plans/reports/understand-*.md) that opens with a detailed summary section — or delivers it in full in chat when Step 3 finds no git-ignored directory for it — and always summarizes it in chat. Regardless of coding level. Never interrogates, never quizzes, never blocks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

[Code Quality] Use to validate a spec artifact's decisions with the user across three contexts — a freshly-authored Feature Spec (idea-to-spec), an existing canonical spec before PBI decomposition (spec-to-pbi), or a refined idea + §8 test-specs (idea-to-pbi deep mode). Detects the context, walks every applicable validation category, and runs an exhaustive but budget-bounded blocking clarification gate so every non-obvious or conflicting decision is confirmed before the artifact drives downstream work.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

[Decision Support] Use when pressure-testing irreversible, high-stakes decisions with adversarial AI advisors.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

壊れた GUID / fileID 参照を検出し、一意な置換先のみ `safe_fix`、それ以外は `decision_required` で保留する。ignore-guid file (`<scope>/config/ignore_guids.txt`) と allowlist branch 経由で noise を整理する。 トリガー: `validate_refs` で missing GUID / fileID が出た、Broken PPtr の調査。

Udon / ClientSim のランタイム例外を分類してアセット / コンポーネントに紐づけ、 決定的な修正は `safe_fix`、判断が必要なものは `decision_required` で仕分ける。 トリガー: ランタイム例外、Udon nullref、ClientSim 起動失敗、ログベースの regression。

At the end of a long working session, produce a counterfactual trace note — a backward walk through the session that identifies the small number of load-bearing moments (observations, failures, accidents, decisions) without which the final outcome would not exist. Use this whenever the user asks to "close the session", "run the butterfly", "trace back", "what actually mattered here", asks for a session retrospective, or asks how the session arrived at its result. Also use it when a session ends with a significant outcome (a fix, a design decision, a shipped artifact) and the user wants a note capturing why it happened, not just what happened. Do NOT use for simple summaries of short sessions — this skill is for causal tracing, and it only earns its cost when the session was long enough to contain real forks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。