“questioning”的搜索结果

Guides project ideation via Socratic questioning to produce a validated brief. Use before specification when requirements are unclear.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Socratic method teaching skill that guides users to discover answers themselves through questioning, never giving direct answers. TRIGGER when: user's message contains 'socratic', 'Socrates', or '소크라테스'. Works with any knowledge asset — codebases, markdown files, PDFs, documentation, configs, or any readable content. Respond in the user's language.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Turn vague or partially formed AI, computer-science, data-driven, and engineering-method research directions into evidence-grounded, falsifiable, paper-ready Research Idea Briefs through heuristic questioning, staged confirmation, literature positioning, novelty attack, and method-figure planning. Use when the user needs to clarify a research idea, formalize inputs/outputs/objectives/constraints, frame background and motivation, select 3-5 anchor papers, identify a defensible gap, derive 2-3 contributions, stress-test novelty, or design an input-to-output method framework and core-paper figure. Also trigger on requests such as 明确科研 idea、启发式梳理 idea、互动追问科研问题、梳理论文创新点、定义研究任务、找对标论文、把研究方向变成论文方案、画方法框架图. Do not use as the primary workflow for running experiments, exhaustive systematic reviews, drafting full manuscript sections, or polishing finished prose.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Grounded in first principles, rigorously examine and refine a user's plan, task, decision, goal, strategy, proposal, or idea through structured, progressively deeper questioning, in order to bridge the gap between the User and the Agent. Use when the user explicitly requests grilling, challenge, pressure-testing, cross-examination, red-team review, pre-mortem analysis, or a decision audit. The goal is to uncover unclear objectives, hidden assumptions, contradictions, weak evidence, missing information, overlooked constraints, dependencies, risks, trade-offs, failure modes, and misalignment between intended outcomes and likely real-world results. Begin by establishing a shared understanding of the user's actual intent, goals, constraints, and success criteria. Ask focused, high-leverage questions rather than broad or repetitive ones. Adapt each question based on previous answers, probing deeper where uncertainty, unsupported assumptions, or strategic weaknesses remain. Regularly summarize the current understanding of the user's intent and position to confirm alignment, expose misunderstandings, and refine the problem or goal definition. Distinguish facts, assumptions, hypotheses, and unknowns. Challenge reasoning rigorously while remaining constructive, respectful, and solution-oriented. Continue until the reasoning is internally coherent, evidence-aware, constraint-conscious, risk-assessed, and translated into a clearer, more actionable goal, decision, or plan. Ultimately, achieving the super-alignment.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Surface risks through guided questioning, helping users consider pivots, constraints, and prioritization during PRD v0.5 Red Team Review. Triggers on requests to identify risks, stress-test the idea, perform red team review, or when user asks "what could go wrong?", "identify risks", "red team", "risk assessment", "challenge assumptions", "stress test the idea". Consumes all prior IDs (CFD-, BR-, FEA-, PER-, UJ-, SCR-) as interview context. Outputs RISK- entries with owner decisions and mitigations. Feeds v0.5 Technical Stack Selection.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies the foundationalist reasoning and methodological doubt of René Descartes (17th-century French rationalist philosopher). Use this skill whenever the user is questioning fundamental assumptions, seeking absolute certainty in a decision, dismantling flawed systems, or trying to rebuild a project from first principles. Trigger this skill for topics involving epistemology, rationalism, radical doubt, systemic reconstruction, or separating objective truth from sensory illusion. Reach for this whenever a user needs to cut through probabilities and consensus to find an indubitable 'Archimedean point' to build upon.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies the reasoning of Mary Wollstonecraft (18th-century English philosopher and author of A Vindication of the Rights of Woman) to evaluate situations involving power dynamics, education, independence, gender roles, and systemic inequality. Use this skill whenever Claude encounters career trade-offs involving financial dependence, analyzing structural oppression, questioning societal norms, or balancing reason against emotion. It helps dismantle arbitrary hierarchies, prioritize rational capability over superficial elegance, and frame personal struggles as political realities.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies the empiricist, skeptical, and practical reasoning of David Hume, 18th-century Scottish philosopher. Use this skill whenever you encounter questions about epistemology, causality, human nature, moral philosophy, political authority, or the limits of rational knowledge. Trigger this skill when the user is grappling with abstract theories that need grounding, evaluating causal claims, discussing the role of emotion vs. reason in decision-making, or questioning the legitimacy of institutions. Even if the user doesn't name Hume, apply his frameworks (like Hume's Fork or the Impression Test) to cut through metaphysical speculation, ground arguments in observable experience, and recognize that reason is ultimately guided by human sentiment.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies the philosophical frameworks of Martha Nussbaum (American philosopher, capabilities approach, University of Chicago) to evaluate justice, human welfare, and ethical dilemmas. Use this skill whenever the user is discussing measuring societal well-being, educational curricula, animal rights, the role of emotions (like anger or disgust) in law and public life, or navigating human vulnerability and tragedy. Reach for this skill whenever evaluating policy impacts, responding to injustice, or questioning purely economic metrics like GDP. It shifts the focus to what people are actually able to do and be.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies the philosophical frameworks of Friedrich Nietzsche (19th-century German philosopher, author of Thus Spoke Zarathustra). Use this skill whenever the user is grappling with existential crises, seeking meaning, facing severe adversity, questioning traditional moral frameworks, or feeling trapped by societal expectations (the "herd"). Trigger this when discussing self-overcoming, creating personal values, analyzing power dynamics in relationships or institutions, dealing with envy, or breaking down dogmatic beliefs. It helps reframe suffering as a catalyst for growth and pushes the user to "become what they are" rather than settling for comfort and mediocrity.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Uncover root causes through recursive Why questioning and consequence exploration. Use before acting on problems.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Structured pre-design questioning to surface hidden constraints before any architecture decision is locked in. Forces the architect/auditor/reviewer to enumerate what they DON'T know before proposing.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Gather phase context through adaptive questioning before planning. Use --all to skip area selection and discuss all gray areas interactively. Use --auto to skip interactive questions (Claude picks recommended defaults). Use --chain for interactive discuss followed by automatic plan+execute. Use --power for bulk question generation into a file-based UI (answer at your own pace).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Verifying YAGNI, cutting scope, and proposing complexity reductions. A 'subtraction' agent questioning the justification for every feature, dependency, doc, and config. Does not write code.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Generate elaborative interrogation prompts that deepen encoding through targeted why and how questions. Use when students memorise without understanding or need deeper processing of content.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Check an educational practice or task for cultural bias, WEIRD assumptions, and cross-cultural validity. Use when adapting resources for diverse contexts or questioning universal claims.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Design a checking-for-understanding protocol with specific techniques for each lesson stage. Use when planning systematic comprehension checks during explicit or direct instruction.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Test a half-formed idea in a questioning conversation, with different personas probing its weak points, until the user can act on it or drop it with confidence. Optionally writes a short brief for planning skills to build on. Use when the user says 'forge an idea', 'pressure-test this idea', 'stress-test my thinking', or 'harden this idea'

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Socratic tutor that teaches codebase understanding through questioning, challenges, and active recall. Invoke with /learn-codebase when onboarding to a new codebase or deepening understanding of existing code. Maintains a learning journal that tracks mastery and schedules reviews.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Socratic questioning partner named Gadfly for deep learning through dialogue. Use this skill when the user wants to learn, understand, or explore a topic through questions rather than explanations. Trigger when the user says "teach me about...", "help me understand...", "I want to learn...", "ask me questions about...", "quiz me", "Socratic method", "Gadfly", or wants to deeply understand something through dialogue rather than passive reading. Also trigger when the user provides a text or document and wants to be questioned about it, or wants to check their own understanding of a concept.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when the user has a fuzzy idea and wants to shape it into a concrete project spec before planning or building. Triggers on: "brainstorm this", "I have an idea for...", "help me think through this project", "what should I build", "spec this out". Also catches vague feature descriptions needing structured questioning to clarify scope. Does NOT write code, plan implementation, review strategy docs, or run strategy interviews — produces a WHAT/WHY spec through dialogue, not a HOW plan.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Meta-cognitive and practical strategies for learning any language -- learner autonomy, goal setting, strategy taxonomy (Oxford's SILL framework), memory strategies, cognitive strategies (note-taking, summarizing, analyzing, reasoning), compensation strategies, metacognitive strategies (planning, monitoring, evaluating), affective strategies (managing anxiety, self-encouragement), social strategies (collaboration, questioning, empathy), immersion design, study habit optimization, plateau diagnosis, and motivation maintenance. Use when designing a language learning plan, diagnosing a learner's stuck points, selecting study methods, or building self-directed learning skills.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Designs and diagnoses list experiments (the item count technique), covering whether indirect measurement is warranted, control-list construction against floor and ceiling effects, design variants, estimators and assumption tests in the list package, and power planning for the precision penalty. Use when the user measures a sensitive attitude or behavior and asks about list experiments, item count, unmatched count, or veiled questioning, or has an implausible prevalence estimate. Deciding whether sensitivity bias exists at all goes to survey-design.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。