「decision」の検索結果

Architecture Decision Framework workflow skill. Use this skill when the user needs Architectural decision-making framework. Requirements analysis, trade-off evaluation, ADR documentation. Use when making architecture decisions or analyzing system design and the operator should preserve the upstream workflow, copied support files, and provenance before merging or handing off.

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。

B2B 大客户销售 (B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄ 资格审查纪律 (MEDDIC/MEDDPICC: 先严格 qualify/disqualify, 「no deal 好过 bad deal」)**; 三派不是非此即彼, 资深人混用, 但底层世界观分歧真实(问 vs 教 vs 筛); 更深层张力 — 「过程/方法论纪律 (process rigor: 预测准确、deal inspection、qualify) ⇄ 关系/信任 (relationship: champion 培养、高管关系、人情)」, 「卖结果/业务价值 (business outcome/ROI、卖给经济决策人) ⇄ 卖产品/功能 (feature selling)」, 「多线程触达买方委员会 (multithreading buying committee) ⇄ 单一 champion 依赖」; (b) 方法论正典 (最标准化、最易蒸出高质量+CLI 化) — MEDDIC/MEDDPICC (Metrics 量化指标/Economic buyer 经济决策人/Decision Criteria 决策标准/Decision Process 决策流程/Identify Pain 痛点/Champion 内部拥护者 + Paper process 签约流程/Competition 竞争), SPIN (Situation/Problem/Implication/Need-payoff 提问序列), Challenger (商业洞见 commercial insight + reframe + 建设性张力 constructive tension + Mobilizer 调动者), Solution Selling (痛点链 pain chain/愿景创建/buying vision), Sandler (前置合约 up-front contract/痛苦漏斗 pain funnel/潜艇七步), Command of the Message (Force Management: 业务价值框架/before-after/decision criteria), Gap Selling (Keenan: 现状 current state → 期望 future state → 差距 the gap/问题中心), Miller Heiman Strategic Selling (蓝表 blue sheet/buying influences: 经济/用户/技术买家 + coach), Value Selling, BANT (老式资格框架, 多被 MEDDIC 取代); (c) 行业结构与角色 — SDR/BDR (开发/约见) → AE/客户经理 (成交) → SE/售前/Solutions Engineer (技术验证/POC/demo) → CSM (客户成功/续约扩张) → Sales Manager/VP Sales/CRO; RevOps (收入运营), Sales Enablement (赋能); land and expand (先落地再扩张)、量化指标 quota/OTE(目标总收入)/配额达成率/pipeline coverage(管道覆盖率 ~3x 业内经验法则)/win rate(赢率)/sales velocity(销售速度)/ramp time(爬坡期)/ACV·ARR·NRR(年合同额/年经常性收入/净收入留存); (d) 销售周期 (the deal/opportunity lifecycle) — prospecting 开发 → discovery 需求挖掘 → qualification 资格审查(MEDDIC) → demo/technical validation/POC 技术验证 → business case/value 业务价值与 ROI → proposal 提案 → negotiation 谈判(procurement 采购/法务/security review) → close 成交 → onboarding/expansion 交付与扩张; 干系人: champion 拥护者 vs coach 线人 vs economic buyer 经济决策人 vs blocker 阻碍者; mutual action plan/close plan(双向行动计划/成交计划); (e) 产出物与节奏 — discovery call(需求电话)、demo、business case、proposal/SOW、MAP(mutual action plan)、forecast(预测: commit/best case/pipeline 类别)、pipeline review/deal review/QBR(季度业务回顾)/account plan(客户计划); (f) 职业/招聘/薪酬 — quota/OTE/comp plan(底薪+提成)/accelerator(加速器)/SPIFF/clawback、ramp、President's Club(顶尖销售俱乐部)、SDR→AE→管理 晋升路径、rep turnover(销售流失率高); (g) 争议/批判 — Challenger 是否过誉(CEB 原始数据被质疑、insight selling 批评)、MEDDIC 沦为填表剧场(box-checking theater, 填字段不真 qualify)、活动指标 vs 质量(spray-and-pray 群发/冷电话存废之争)、AI SDR/自动化淹没收件箱(2024-2025 AI BDR 泡沫 + 邮件送达率崩溃 backlash)、SDR 军团模式是否将死(Winning by Design/signal-based GTM 取代)、配额虚高与销售 burnout、季末打折促单、销售方法论的「宗教化」与培训-认证产业链、最大竞争对手其实是「no decision/维持现状」而非对手; (h) 流派/思想谱系 — 提问诊断派(Rackham SPIN/Bosworth&Eades Solution Selling/Keenan Gap Selling) vs 挑战教学派(Dixon&Adamson Challenger/Force Management Command of the Message) vs 资格纪律派(MEDDIC: Napoli&Dunkel 起源/John McMahon/MEDDICC Andy Whyte) vs 关系战略派(Miller Heiman Strategic/Large Account) vs SaaS 现代收入架构派(Aaron Ross Predictable Revenue/Mark Roberge Sales Acceleration Formula/Jacco van der Kooij Winning by Design bowtie/David Skok 指标) vs 开发-心态派(Jeb Blount Fanatical Prospecting/Sales EQ、Anthony Iannarino、Josh Braun) vs 谈判(Chris Voss Never Split the Difference 战术同理心)。不含: B2C/零售/电商导购销售、纯电话客服/客户支持、纯渠道/分销管理(channel 虽相关但聚焦直销复杂销售)、纯 marketing/需求生成(demand gen 虽上游但本 skill 聚焦销售执行)、纯 CSM 客户成功(虽相关但聚焦 new logo + expansion 的销售动作)。) Master OS — automated mastery of B2B 大客户销售 / 企业级复杂销售 (Enterprise B2B Sales / Complex Selling) — 面向企业客户的高价值、长周期、多干系人复杂销售的职业认知操作系统，从业者(AE/客户经理/SE 售前/销售负责人 VP Sales/CRO)、想入行者、以及服务这行(销售咨询/enablement/RevOps)的视角。覆盖: (a) 第一性张力 — 三大方法论流派之争: **买方主导的诊断式提问 (consultative/discovery-led: SPIN 提问 → 痛点 → 方案, 「像医生先诊断再开方」) ⇄ 卖方主导的教学式挑战 (Challenger: Teach-Tailor-Take control, 用商业洞见 reframe 客户认知, 「像老师挑战客户的既有想法」) ⇄

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。

Act as a product-manager copilot that turns evidence into product decisions and artifacts: backlogs and prioritization, PRDs and user stories, metrics and OKRs, experiments, launch plans, feedback triage, and pricing/packaging, kept in a per-product workspace. Use whenever the user wants to decide what to build, spec it, or ship it: "write a PRD for…", "prioritize our backlog", "what should we build next", "plan OKRs", "define our north star metric", "design an A/B test", "plan the launch", "triage this customer feedback", "platform or feature?", in any language ("viết PRD", "ưu tiên tính năng nào", "quản lý sản phẩm", "プロダクト管理", "产品经理"), even when they never say "product manager". Also use when the user returns to a product workspace this skill created (a directory holding `product.md`, `state.md`, and `decisions.md`). Not for deep user discovery (design-thinking), desk market facts (market-researcher), or company-level bets (strategy-board).

Expert Architecture Decision Record (ADR) creation and lifecycle management based on Olaf Zimmermann's methodology. Use when creating ADRs, reviewing architectural decisions, evaluating decision readiness, writing MADR templates, assessing decision quality, or managing ADR logs. Covers the full lifecycle from readiness (START criteria) through creation, MADR formatting, completion (ECADR criteria), and ongoing maintenance.

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 the user faces a real decision with stakes and wants it framed cleanly — options, ranked criteria, a recommendation, the falsifier, and reversibility — then logged to decisions/log.md. Trigger on "/decide", "help me decide", "should I X or Y", "frame this decision", "what's the call here", "log this decision".

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。

Add an external probabilistic classifier to a decision path without letting it take the path over. Covers finding the externally-graded rows you are already logging, measuring the confidence separation between the overrides it got right and the ones it got wrong, choosing an operating point your data licenses, failing open at the call site, and proving the whole arrangement offline with no API key. Applies to any service returning a score you can order — TypeSafe AI's System One models (Jev) are the worked example. Most of the method transfers to a local model or a second heuristic, with the parts that do not called out where they arise. Use when a rule-based path is wrong often enough to hurt, when someone proposes replacing a heuristic with a model, when a confidence threshold needs a defensible value, or when an oracle already in production has never been graded.

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。

Design effective reasoning processes for AI agents and optimize decision-making strategies. Use when designing agent prompts, improving decision quality, implementing specialized reasoning modes, creating reasoning traces, or debugging agent mistakes. Covers prompting, chain-of-thought, reasoning depth, and decision evaluation.

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。

Create and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) for significant technical choices—frameworks, data stores, API shapes, ML platform decisions. Use when documenting a decision, onboarding, or superseding a prior approach.

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。

Write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following the Michael Nygard format. Captures context, options considered, decision rationale, and consequences. Use when making technology choices, framework selections, or any architectural decision that future developers need to understand.

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。

Update a product spec from a meeting transcript — extract decisions, open questions, spec changes, and flowchart updates. Use this skill when: - A meeting discussed changes to a product spec and you need to update the local .md + wiki page - The user shares a meeting URL or transcript ID and says "update the spec" - The user says "what needs to change in the spec from this meeting" - After processing a meeting, when decisions affect a spec's content (not just action items) Trigger phrases: "update spec from meeting", "what changed in the spec", "meeting to spec", "sync meeting decisions to spec", "add meeting decisions to spec"

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 this skill to select the right Salesforce integration pattern — from point-to-point to event-driven to hub-and-spoke — by applying the official Salesforce two-axis decision framework (integration type × timing) to a business integration scenario. Trigger keywords: integration pattern decision, choose integration approach, Salesforce integration architecture, when to use platform events vs API, integration type selection. NOT for implementation of any specific integration pattern (use domain-specific integration skills), MuleSoft architecture (use architect/mulesoft-anypoint-architecture), or middleware vendor selection. More triggers: integration decision record, Bulk API vs REST for a nightly load, external Id upsert, Named Credential vs Remote Site Setting, platform event vs CDC, who calls whom.

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。

Capture architectural decisions made during Claude Code sessions as structured ADRs. Auto-detects decision moments, records context, alternatives considered, and rationale. Maintains an ADR log so future developers understand why the codebase is shaped the way it is.

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。

Write an Architecture Decision Record (ADR) document for a technical decision. Use when documenting a technical choice, architectural decision, or design decision.

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。

Sync reusable frontend decisions into persistent project documentation after UI work. Use when frontend changes introduce or modify component APIs, variants, design-system tokens, styling conventions, layout behavior, accessibility rules, interaction patterns, responsive behavior, or agent operating instructions; when the user asks to reflect decisions in components.md, design system docs, AGENTS.md, CLAUDE.md, GEMINI.md, or similar project memory files; or before finalizing frontend work where future consistency depends on decisions made during 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。

Track design iteration history and apply consistent styling decisions across revision cycles. Use when handling follow-up change requests that reference previous design decisions (e.g., '前回も色で良いんだけど', 'same style as before', 'like we discussed').

Keep decision maps as concise routers from decisions to canonical documents and validation guardrails.

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。

Builds a DRAFT board paper skeleton from the sponsor's inputs: purpose, recommendation as the sponsor states it, options including do nothing, risks, financials exactly as provided, authority to decide and the decision sought, with every claim tagged evidenced, asserted or UNKNOWN so the sponsor sees what still needs support. Use when the user asks to "draft a board paper", "structure the committee paper", "prepare the decision paper for the investment committee", "skeleton the board memo" or "what goes in the paper for the audit committee". Do not use for a pre-read or briefing pack with no resolution sought, use executive-briefing-pack instead; to record a decision already taken in a discussion, use decision-memo-builder. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

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。

Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architect...

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。

ADR（Architecture Decision Record）作成を支援するテンプレートスキル。 docs/adr/ へのADR作成時に自動適用され、 06_DECISION_MAKING.md の3 Agents Modelに準拠した構造を提案する。 アーキテクチャ決定、技術選定、設計方針の記録時に活用される。

Auto-review pipeline — reads the full CEO, design, eng, and DX review skills from disk and runs them sequentially with auto-decisions using 6 decision principles. Surfaces taste decisions (close approaches, borderline scope, codex disagreements) at a final approval gate. One command, fully reviewed plan out. Use when asked to "auto review", "autoplan", "run all reviews", "review this plan automatically", or "make the decisions for me". Proactively suggest when the user has a plan file and wants to run the full review gauntlet without answering 15-30 intermediate questions. (gstack) Voice triggers (speech-to-text aliases): "auto plan", "automatic 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。

Record durable project decisions with rationale, alternatives, assumptions, status, and revisit triggers. Load when the user says record this decision, we decided, decision log, why did we choose, revisit this later, or capture architectural/process rationale.

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。

Capture the "why" behind technical choices to prevent architectural drift. Load when the user makes a major technical decision, chooses a library/framework, defines a system boundary, or changes a core architectural pattern. Also triggers on "record a decision", "write an ADR", "why did we do this", "document this architectural choice", or "architectural decision record". Supports `SYNTHESIS=true` mode for retrospective ADR backfill from observed repo state — used by `retroactive-project-setup` and any future backfill skill. Essential for long-term project maintainability and agent alignment.

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。

Write and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architect...

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。