「dialectic」の検索結果

Analyze, design, write, revise, translate, and review empirical or technical research papers through an evidence-bounded dialectical workflow. Use when Codex must develop a research question, integrate reference papers with a user's ideas, build phenomenon-mechanism-conditions reasoning, design methods or experiments, restructure or edit a manuscript, translate Chinese academic text into restrained English, answer reviewers, or run multi-round peer-review convergence without fabricating evidence.

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-phase dialectical stress-test for HIGH-STAKES decisions only (architecture choices, irreversible product calls, strategic bets). Heavy-cost skill — do NOT use for routine questions, brainstorming, or simple tradeoffs. User must explicitly invoke or describe a decision they call "high-stakes", "irreversible", or "needs stress-testing". Triggers: "stress test this decision", "dialectic on", "challenge this thesis", "should I really".

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 should be used when the user wants to "synthesize two competing solutions without averaging", "resolve a design/value disagreement by lifting to a higher frame", "止揚 / アウフヘーベン", "矛盾を止揚", "独立案を統合", "平均化せず統合", "contradiction lift", "sublate competing designs", or has two good-but-divergent answers to the same question and wants a higher-order resolution (a selection mechanism) or an honest aporia — not a compromise. NOTE: Use this when two independent solutions diverge and you want to PRESERVE both truth-moments while lifting to a higher frame. Use devils-advocate to stress-test ONE proposal with an assigned opponent, strong-inference to find an unknown cause, and dialectic-loop to validate a claim against a real corpus.

This skill should be used when the user wants to "stress-test a design", "challenge an idea", "red team a proposal", "get critical feedback on a design", "validate a design", "adversarial architecture review", "risk assessment", "設計を検証して", "反論をもらいたい", "設計を批判的にレビュー", "デビルズアドボケート", "ストレステスト", "弱点を指摘して", "穴を見つけて", "この設計で良いか", "リスク評価", "設計のアーキテクチャレビュー", or mentions structured adversarial review of a proposal or design. NOTE: Use this for validating PROPOSALS and DESIGNS through adversarial debate, NOT for generic code review, PR review, or normal review requests (use /codex:review or /codex:adversarial-review for those). Also NOT for investigating unknown bugs (use /agent-dialectics:strong-inference for that).

Configure and use Honcho memory with Hermes -- cross-session user modeling, multi-profile peer isolation, observation config, dialectic reasoning, session summaries, and context budget enforcement. Use when setting up Honcho, troubleshooting memory, managing profiles with Honcho peers, or tuning observation, recall, and dialectic settings.

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。

Minimal compatibility wrapper for vibe Dialectic Mode (multi-perspective design 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。

This skill should be used when the user wants to "test a claim against data", "validate an empirical hypothesis", "refine a model/theory with evidence", "characterize a pattern and verify it", "演繹と帰納で検証", "仮説をデータで検証して更新", "実例と反例で確かめる", "弁証法ループ", "主張を現物で裏取り", "傾向分析を検証して精緻化", or mentions iteratively updating a hypothesis by deriving predictions and testing them against a real corpus. NOTE: Use this for VALIDATING/REFINING an empirical claim or model against real data through a derive→test→update loop. Use strong-inference for debugging an UNKNOWN cause, and devils-advocate for adversarially stress-testing a DESIGN proposal.

统筹兼顾：当多个目标、指标或利益方相互制约、优化一项会伤害另一项时，识别全部辩证关系对，检查片面性，为每对关系定出当前阶段的侧重与底线，评估系统性影响，并设失衡预警。触发信号包括 trade-off、目标冲突、速度 vs 质量、短期 vs 长期、"顾此失彼"；只有单一目标、用户已定取舍、或属硬性二选一时不触发。 English: Overall planning. When several goals, metrics, or stakeholders constrain each other and optimizing one harms another, map every dialectical pair, check for one-sidedness, set the current emphasis and floor for each pair, assess system-wide effects, and define imbalance alarms. Triggers include trade-offs, goal conflicts, speed vs quality, short vs long term; skip for single-goal work, decisions the user already made, or hard either/or constraints.

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。

Codex-local role pack for dialectic multi-agent reviews, designed to be compatible with the local vibe 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。

Premise, theme, controlling idea, subject selection and logline for scripts (前提/主题/立意/选材/戏核) — merged from Lajos Egri's premise-as-tyrant and dialectic, Robert McKee's controlling idea (value + cause) and idea/counter-idea, Neill Hicks' five premise questions, Lisa Cron's "third rail" (desire vs misbelief, origin scene, what-if), Julian Hoxter's logline and theme-attitude rule, Blake Snyder's logline/genre/title tests, and Lu Jun's Chinese craft chapters on 选材要严/开掘要深/视角要新/戏核要好/情节要奇. Use when turning a vague idea into a premise, finding what a story is really about, choosing a subject and angle, testing a logline, deciding the ending from the theme, or diagnosing a script that "has events but no story".

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 user explicitly asks for an adversarial / multi-round dialectic between masters — 祖师辩论, 各执一词, 谁更对, debate, 应成 vs 顿悟, 顿渐之争. Differs from /compare-masters (parallel single-round) by being adversarial multi-round via fresh-subagent orchestration. Topics 空有 / 禅净 / 性相 / 戒律 vs 内观 — trigger is adversarial framing: "禅净比较" → compare; "禅净辩论 / 谁更究竟" → here.

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 user asks for a sequenced learning path within a Buddhist tradition — 学修次第, 先学什么, 从哪入门, 下一步读什么, curriculum, 学习计划, 路径推荐. Differs from /compare-masters (parallel opinion) and /master-debate (adversarial dialectic) by being 纵向 / 时序: stage-by-stage plan keyed on tradition × level (L0-L3) → foundation → intermediate → advanced + blind spots. Trigger is planning intent — "禅宗对比" goes to /compare-masters; "禅宗从哪开始学" goes here.

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。

Applies the philosophical frameworks of Plato (ancient Greek philosopher, Theory of Forms, founder of the Academy) to structural, ethical, and epistemological problems. Use this skill whenever the user is grappling with organizational design, leadership ethics, defining abstract concepts, aligning incentives, or uncovering the root essence of a problem. Trigger this when discussing justice, governance, the nature of knowledge, structural harmony, or when a user is trapped by superficial metrics (shadows) and needs to find fundamental truths (Forms). Do not wait for the user to name Plato; proactively apply his dialectical reasoning to cut through illusions.

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。

Applies the dialectical reasoning and intellectual humility of Socrates (ancient Greek philosopher, 470-399 BCE). Use this skill whenever the user is grappling with fundamental definitions, moral dilemmas, educational approaches, self-reflection, or making high-stakes ethical decisions. Trigger this skill when encountering topics like virtue, justice, the pursuit of truth, questioning assumptions, coaching, or when the user seems overly confident in unexamined beliefs. It helps dismantle false assumptions through probing questions and redirects focus toward the "care of the soul" and objective truth over external validation or material success.

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。

Interpersonal communication theory and practice for one-on-one and small group interaction. Covers communication models (linear, transactional, constructivist), self-disclosure and Johari Window, relational dialectics, communication climate, supportive versus defensive communication, feedback models, and adapting style across relationships and contexts. Use when analyzing communication dynamics, improving relationships, giving feedback, or understanding communication breakdowns between individuals.

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 implementation review based on Block's g3 dialectical autocoding research. Use when validating implementation completeness against requirements with fresh objectivity.

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 dialectic tool inspired by GAN. Alternates between Generator (creative advocate) and Discriminator (adversarial critic). Supports forced role selection (g/d), intensity modes (hard/soft), and multi-language output. Use for stress-testing ideas, business plans, code, and spec designs.

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。

Integrate Honcho memory and social cognition into existing Python or TypeScript codebases. Use when adding Honcho SDK, setting up peers, configuring sessions, implementing the dialectic chat endpoint for AI agents, or wiring Honcho into bot frameworks (nanobot, openclaw, picoclaw, etc).

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。

Consult Claude Code from Codex for a second opinion while Codex remains responsible for implementation and verification. Use when the user asks Codex to collaborate with Claude, consult Claude, ask Claude for a plan, get a Claude review, delegate analysis to Claude, or says "Claudeと一緒に", "Claudeに相談", "Claudeにレビューしてもらう", "Claudeの意見も聞く", or "Claudeと計画を立てる". Also use when an explicit independent planning or review pass from Claude would materially reduce risk on a complex coding task.

This skill should be used when the user wants to "investigate a bug", "debug an issue", "figure out why something is happening", "find the root cause", "troubleshoot", "強い推論で調査", "仮説を立てて検証", "原因を特定", "バグの原因調査", "なぜ動かないか調べて", "問題を切り分け", "原因不明", "デバッグ", or mentions systematic hypothesis-driven debugging. NOTE: Use this for investigating UNKNOWN causes, not for validating design proposals (use devils-advocate for that).