Use for tradeoff analysis, or when the user must pick between concrete options: "A or B?", "which library should we use?", "build vs buy", "compare these approaches". Scores options on weighted criteria, tests sensitivity and reversibility. Skip for open ideation or single-option reviews.
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。
Choose among a small set of real options with the criteria, weights and evidence in plain view. A weighted decision matrix with a sensitivity check and a reversibility check.
Skip: generating options from scratch (explore first, then come here), reviewing one plan for flaws, or ranking a long backlog.
[ESTIMATED]. Ask up to 3 questions only for goals and constraints tools cannot answer.2-5 genuinely different options, including do nothing or keep current when it is real.
Hard constraints (budget cap, compliance, deadline). An option that fails one is out; do not score it.
3-7 criteria that reflect the goal and do not overlap (avoid counting the same thing twice, such as "speed" and "performance"). Give weights that sum to 100 and say why the top weight is highest.
Rate each option per criterion from 1 (poor) to 5 (strong), with a short basis.
| Criterion (weight) | Option A | Option B |
|---|---|---|
| ... (40) | 4 - basis | 3 - basis |
| Weighted total |
Change the largest weight by about 10 points, or the least certain score by one. Does the winner change? Name the one criterion or score that flips the result.
How costly is it to undo this choice (switching cost, data lock-in, contract length, time)? Easy to reverse: decide faster and favor learning. Hard to reverse: spend more effort on evidence.
The pick, the main reason, the main cost you accept, and what would change the pick. For money or time tradeoffs, add a compact cost-benefit line: expected benefit range minus cost range, with the unit and period.
[ESTIMATED].Worked example: references/example.md.
[ESTIMATED]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 for analytical thinking, or when a question needs breaking down and evidence: "why did metric X drop?", "what drives this?", "break this down", "what data do we need?". Builds a tree, hypotheses and evidence, ends with an answer and key uncertainty. Skip for quick verdicts.
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 creative thinking, or when the user wants many fresh options before choosing: "give me ideas", "brainstorm names", "other ways to do this", "think outside the box". Diverges first, then picks. Skip when one answer is wanted or the task is pure execution.
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 critical thinking, or when the user wants a claim, plan or decision checked for weak spots: "is this right?", "what am I missing?", "poke holes", "sanity check", "devil's advocate", "red team this". Skip for execution-only tasks and wording edits.
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 design thinking, or when a product or service problem needs user understanding before solutions: "what do users really need?", "how might we...", "plan a discovery sprint", "validate this concept". Skip when the spec is frozen or the task is code 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 for ethical thinking, or when a plan could harm or unfairly burden people: "should we do this?", "is this fair?", "privacy or bias risk", "who gets hurt?". Maps stakeholders, harms, power and consent. Skip for legal advice, neutral fact lookups and implementation-only 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。
Use for Fermi estimation, or when a rough number is needed fast: "roughly how many...", "ballpark the cost", "estimate capacity or market size", "is this even feasible?". Decomposes, uses ranges and sanity-checks. Skip when exact data is available or a precise calculation is wanted.
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。