「stress-test」の検索結果

Calibrated interrogation of a fuzzy idea before it becomes a spec. Asks one question at a time, recommends an answer, and lands each answer in §G (goal) or §C (constraints) — unknowns parked as `?` items, never guessed. The cheapest place to kill a bad idea is before §T exists. Triggers when the user has a vague idea, says "grill me", "stress-test this", "challenge my plan", "interview me before I spec", or invokes /ck:grill. Defers the actual write to the spec skill.

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。

Run all four review skills (investor, customer, operator, skeptic) on a business plan in sequence, then auto-decide where verdicts agree and surface only disagreements + taste decisions to the user. One command = full review gauntlet, intelligently filtered. Use when a plan is ready to be stress-tested before commit. Triggered by: 'panel review', 'review panel', 'run all reviews', 'review gauntlet', '审议会', '四方评审'.

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。

Review a business plan from the perspective of the named target customer. Asks: would they actually pay this price for this solution today? Outputs a verdict with one of four modes — PAY NOW / PAY WITH FRICTION / WOULDN'T PAY / WRONG ICP. Use when the user has a defined ICP and pricing and wants to stress-test whether the value prop survives contact with reality. Triggered by: 'customer review', 'would they pay', 'pricing reality check', '客户视角', '会付费吗'.

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。

Stress-test a plan, brief or delivery claim against evidence and plausible failure modes. Use when the user asks for a red team or preparation for a consequential 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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Adversarial thinking partner that stress-tests plans, prepares board meetings, and surfaces blind spots. Use when you need plan validation, board prep, hard-decision frameworks, or pre/post-mortem failure analysis.

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。

Critically assess and improve a legal scholarly thesis, article idea, student note, seminar-paper claim, or research agenda using Eugene Volokh's novelty, nonobviousness, utility, and soundness framework, connector-aware research, claim-specific tests, and a sustainable adversarial pass. Produces a self-contained green-, yellow-, or red-light report. Use when a law professor or law student asks whether a claim is viable, novel, publishable, preempted, useful, worth pursuing, or better than competing topics; or wants a thesis stress-tested, narrowed, repaired, or compared. No connector is required: use connected legal and scholarly research when available, public sources otherwise, and disclose any no-research fallback.

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 stress-tests a proposed settlement position before an offer goes out or comes back: the assumptions it depends on, your leverage and the opponent’s, the evidential weaknesses, the likely opponent response, and the timing and costs pressures around it. It structures settlement judgment for a better-informed decision; it does not advise whether to settle.

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。

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.

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。

Prepare a lawyer for an adversarial proceeding the way Neal Katyal's "Harvey" prepared him for the SCOTUS tariffs argument: profile the tribunal from their prior opinions and questions, predict the specific questions you will face, map narrow "escape routes" each judge can walk through without abandoning prior commitments, and spar adversarially until only the strongest answers survive. The model is the sparring partner. The human still wins the case. Use when: preparing for oral argument, appellate argument, motion hearing, evidentiary hearing, deposition (taking or defending), arbitration, mediation, or any proceeding where a known decision-maker will fire questions at you in real time. Also useful for stress-testing a brief before filing. Proactively suggest when: the user mentions an upcoming hearing/argument with named judges or arbitrators, drafts a brief and wants it pressure-tested, asks "what will Justice X / Judge Y ask me," or talks about preparing for a specific bench.

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。

Adversarial premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Run a large-scale language migration with the six-step process: create the map and the rules, stress-test the rules, translate everything, compile, run it, match behavior. Use when the user wants to migrate, port, or rewrite a codebase from one language to another ("migrate this to Rust", "port our Python CLI to TypeScript", "should we rewrite this in Go?"), or asks for a migration feasibility assessment. Not for incremental JS→TS adoption — that needs no machinery — or single-file conversions.

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。

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

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。

Interview the user relentlessly about a plan or design until reaching shared understanding, resolving each branch of the decision tree. Use when user wants to stress-test a plan, get grilled on their design, or mentions "grill me".

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。

Synthesises the current conversation context into a Product Requirements Document and publishes it to GitHub (as a comment on a referenced issue, or a new issue). Synthesises from context; does not interview. TRIGGER when: the conversation has produced enough understanding of a feature and the user wants it captured as a PRD. DO NOT TRIGGER when: a single small issue is enough → creating-issues; the idea has not been stress-tested yet → grilling-ideas first; bug reports.

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。

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

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。

Brainstorm evidence-backed options for what to build, or stress-test an idea. Use when: deciding what to build next, comparing options or testing an idea.

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 product strategy and stress-tests your moat, then writes a one-page strategy doc (diagnosis, where to play, how to win, guiding policy, coherent actions, moat verdicts). Use for 'we need a product strategy', 'is our moat real', 'do we have a competitive advantage', 'where should we play', 'defensibility', 'should we expand into X', 'our roadmap has no strategy', or 'write a product vision'. Draws on 909 insights from 236 Lenny's Podcast guests incl. Roger Martin, Richard Rumelt and Hamilton Helmer.

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。

Grill the user relentlessly about a plan, decision, or idea. Use when the user wants to stress-test their thinking, or uses any 'grill' trigger phrases.

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。

Argues the strongest honest case against a decision, plan, belief, hire, pricing move, strategy, or piece of work the user is leaning toward. Steelmans the other side, ranks at most three objections by consequence, runs a short pre-mortem, credits what the user got right, and ends with what would have to be true for their choice to work. Calibrated and collegial, never combative; says plainly when the position is strong. Use whenever the user says "play devil's advocate", "argue the other side", "poke holes in this", "what am I missing", "am I making a mistake", "talk me out of it", "stress-test this idea", "tell me why this is a bad idea", or asks for pushback on something they have mostly decided. Supports gentle, standard, and hard intensity. Not for interrogating requirements before a build (grill-the-brief) or staging a multi-persona debate (debate-simulator).

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。

Before showing the user any substantive GTM deliverable (positioning, value prop, homepage, launch post, pricing, sales script, the brief or roadmap), stress-test it against the standard as an independent critic, because the agent that wrote it is the worst judge of whether it is good. Use as a gate right before presenting work, or when the user asks whether something is actually strong.

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。