Use when reviewing UI for accessibility — WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard nav, focus, ARIA, contrast, screen-reader semantics — even on 'is this a11y-OK?' or 'mach das barrierefrei'.
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 shaping a capital-raise pitch — why-now / why-us / why-this framing, market-size reasoning, traction-story construction. Triggers on 'tighten the pitch', 'why-now is weak'.
インストールする前に、エージェントに与えられる指示の中身を確認できます。
Do NOT use to manage the investor-CRM pipeline (out of scope), run
the data-room (out of scope), or draft the internal vision anchor
the org rallies behind (route to Wing-4 vision-articulation — the
external pitch under capital constraint and the internal anchor
are siblings, not the same artefact).
docs/contracts/mental-models.md § 1.mental-models.md § 9.mental-models.md § 16.mental-models.md § 30.context-spine.Identify the locked positioning anchors from
positioning-strategy and the internal vision
anchor from vision-articulation if it exists. The fundraising
narrative is the external pitch under capital constraint; it
inherits the internal frame, it does not re-invent it. A pitch
that contradicts the internal anchor will fracture on the first
hire after the round closes.
Read the current why-now claim. Three checks: is this a market shift, a customer shift, or a technology shift? Did the shift happen in the last 24 months? Would the segment recognise the shift without prompting? A why-now that fails two of three is template-borrowed. Name what the inherited deck is leaning on.
Strip the inherited claim. Rebuild from the segment-shift up:
Pick the one shift the segment would name without prompting. That is the why-now spine. The others are supporting context.
Why-us is unfair advantage under the next 18 months of capital, not credentials. Three anchors:
Order the traction story leading-first:
A traction story that opens on revenue assumes the room already believes the leading signals; the deck must earn that belief.
Validate the narrative on three checks:
Hand the artefacts to the founder for delivery, to
messaging-architecture for the post-round message-stack refresh
(why-now often shifts the primary message), and to
vision-articulation (Wing-4) for the internal-anchor diff if
contradictions surfaced.
WHEN to use this
WHEN NOT to use this
vision-articulation.messaging-architecture.positioning-strategy first.why-now-spine.md — the one market / customer / technology shift the segment names without prompting, with the 24-month evidence trail.why-us-anchors.md — earned-access · earned-proof · capital-fit, each with a load-bearing artefact citation.traction-arc.md — activation → retention → pipeline-velocity → revenue, leading-first ordering with the leading-indicator threshold per step.round-failure-premortem.md — five failure modes with neutraliser-or-accept verdict, internal-external consistency diff appended.Mid-market HR analytics tool raising Series A, positioning locked (retention beats acquisition):
messaging-architecture queued for post-round refresh.まだレビューはありません。使ってみた感想をお寄せください。
概要と使いどころ
Use when reviewing UI for accessibility — WCAG 2.2 AA, keyboard nav, focus, ARIA, contrast, screen-reader semantics — even on 'is this a11y-OK?' or 'mach das barrierefrei'.
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 defining or auditing the activation event — aha-moment selection, retention correlation, falsifiable definition. Triggers on 'what is our aha moment', 'redefine activation'.
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。
Adversarial critique — devil's advocate, stress-test, honest teardown ('poke holes', 'be brutal', 'was hältst du davon'); explicit request only. Routine code or design review → code-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。
Use when reading, creating, or updating agent documentation, module docs, roadmaps, or AGENTS.md. Understands the full .augment/, agents/, and copilot-instructions structure.
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 for an adversarial red-team / blue-team / auditor review of an AI agent's CONFIG + behaviour (rules, skills, MCP, hooks, permissions) — attack-chain → defensive-gap list, not a code audit.
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。