“pre-mortem”的搜索结果

Run a pre-mortem — imagine the project has already failed one year from now and work backward to find the root causes before they happen. Load when the user asks for a pre-mortem, wants to imagine failure before committing, asks "what could go wrong before we start", "assume this fails — why", "risk analysis before launch", "what kills this project", "what could go wrong", or when deep-thinking diagnoses a pre-mortem frame. Based on Gary Klein's prospective hindsight method, which surfaces failure causes more effectively than forward risk analysis. Most useful right before a major commitment.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

ES — Critica a fondo una idea, plan, pitch o proyecto entero sin validar ni adular: asume que va a fracasar y lo demuestra por ocho ángulos (premisas, mercado, competencia, viabilidad, números, ejecución, pre-mortem y punto ciego), investiga fracasos reales cuando hay herramientas, y entrega un veredicto franco con la lista priorizada de qué arreglar. Activar con /abogado-del-diablo, "hazme pedazos esto", "critica mi idea sin filtros", "dime por qué va a fallar", "destruye este plan", "segunda opinión brutal", "pre-mortem". EN — Harshly critiques an idea, plan, pitch, or whole project without validating; assumes it will fail and proves it across eight angles, then returns a blunt verdict with a prioritized fix list. Trigger on "devil's advocate", "red team this", "tear this apart", "why will this fail", "brutal second opinion", "pre-mortem".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

敵対的分析手法を統合したレビューの entry skill。認知バイアス対策の3手法 （Pre-mortem / War Game / Logic Torturing）と、宣言・主張と実態の乖離を突く claim-vs-actual 検出3パターン（Self-Contradiction / Refactor-Claim Audit / Cross-File Leakage）へルーティングし、通常のレビューでは見えない設計の盲点・ 防御の穴・論理の弱点・宣言と実装のズレを可視化する。

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Review a product plan by imagining a failed launch and tracing possible causes. Separate real risks, overblown concerns, and unspoken worries, then define mitigation actions, owners, and deadlines for issues that must be resolved before launch.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

• Checking launch plans for possible failure causes
• Separating real risks from overblown concerns
• Surfacing assumptions the team has not discussed

Turns a hard product or career decision into a one-page decision memo with the eigenquestion, options, pre-mortem with kill criteria, reversibility rating, a named decider and a review date. Use when you ask 'how should we decide', 'should we build or kill this', 'one-way door or two-way door', 'run a pre-mortem', 'we keep going in circles', 'quit or pivot', or want to grade a decision doc. Draws on 396 insights from 177 Lenny's Podcast guests, led by Annie Duke, Shreyas Doshi and Shishir Mehrotra.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use for a pre-mortem, or before committing to a plan, launch or migration: "what could go wrong?", "stress test this plan", "how might this fail?", "risks before we ship". Assumes failure, lists causes, ranks them and sets mitigations. Skip for explaining a failure that already happened.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Structured second-pass reasoning after code review or plan evaluation. Offers named reasoning methods (pre-mortem, inversion, red team, Socratic, etc.) to re-examine findings through a specific lens. Use after /mk:review verdict or any time deeper analysis is needed on an existing output. NOT for initial review (see mk:review); NOT for creating implementation plans (see mk:plan-creator).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Stress-test plans before committing by imagining they've already failed. Three modes. Diagnostic mode runs a full pre-mortem session — vivid failure scene-setting, six failure categories, the monkey test, and concrete plan adjustments. Review mode checks previous findings monthly for changed probabilities and new failure modes. Alert Triggers mode defines and monitors early warning signals across four trigger categories. Use before any major commitment — strategy, investment, product launch, partnership — or regularly to keep assumptions honest. The planning fallacy is real. The spreadsheet looked great so everyone stopped thinking. This is the antidote. Based on practice by Eterdis (eterdis.com).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

変更が将来インシデントや技術的負債を引き起こすと仮定し、その原因と経路を逆算して設計の盲点を可視化する

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Revisit a recent answer, plan, draft, or decision using selected critique methods. The skill offers relevant approaches, explains what they reveal, and proposes improvements that are applied only after the user accepts them.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

• Examining assumptions in a plan
• Reviewing a draft from several perspectives
• Exploring failure risks before a launch

Examine a plan by imagining it has failed twelve months later. Identify weak assumptions, linked dependencies, and commitments that are hard to reverse, then outline validation steps and criteria for continuing, changing direction, or stopping.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

• Reviewing a plan before committing major resources
• Checking assumptions before a board or investor presentation
• Examining plans that receive only positive feedback

Examine plans, proposals, and decisions by questioning assumptions, building opposing arguments, anticipating failures, or checking evidence. Presents three to five concrete challenges, then uses your responses to develop a stronger position and practical next steps.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

• Review a plan's assumptions before committing
• Examine objections to a technology or vendor choice
• Anticipate project failures and possible mitigations

Stress-test an idea, plan, or proposal through focused critique. The skill examines assumptions, opposing arguments, failure scenarios, attacks, or evidence, then uses your responses to refine the position and identify unresolved trade-offs and risky assumptions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示英语简介。

• Checking a proposal's assumptions before committing
• Anticipating how a project could fail
• Testing whether evidence supports a conclusion

Compare options with weighted scoring, pros and cons, pre-mortems, opportunity costs, and ICE prioritization. Use when a user wants to reason through a choice, expose assumptions, or rank alternatives.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Pre-mortem analysis that imagines a plan has failed, then works backward to identify causes and preventions. Use before launches, major decisions, or risky initiatives to surface hidden risks.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Before committing to a plan or launch, assume it already failed and reason backward through concrete causes — convert failure paths into mitigations, gates, and stop checks.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Challenges ideas, plans, decisions, and proposals using structured critical reasoning as devil's advocate, pre-mortem, red team, or evidence audit.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Deliberate-choice procedure for a medium-to-high-stakes engineering fork — when the first plausible solution (the instinct, the default next-token pull) would be costly to get wrong. Fires AUTONOMOUSLY: invoke proactively whenever a fork fits, never wait to be asked — mechanical triggers include a fix failing for the 2nd-3rd time, adding a dependency, schema/migration design, deleting or deprecating things others depend on, changing a public API, choosing an architecture or stack. Refuse the premature collapse: hold real options open (urge · contrarian · synthesis · out-of-box · intuitive dots · precedent · first-principles), ground each branch in at least one fact from outside the model (codebase, docs, benchmark, spike), future-model consequences (blast radius, reversibility, maintenance, pre-mortem), collapse by deliberate choice, then try to refute the winner before acting. Log the decision and rejected branches in docs/decision_logs/. Not for routine calls — a decision worth more than one forward pass.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Adversarial verification of research theses — cross-run/cross-thesis contradiction via the entity index, pre-mortem (Klarman/Kahneman: assume the loss already happened, reverse the path), inversion (Munger: invert, always invert), and wrong_if falsifiability review. ≈50-finding cap sorted by severity; content-derived finding IDs; incremental scoping with three backstops; lifecycle hooks at pillar-complete / thesis-complete / pre-reduction.

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。

Run structured brainstorming sessions (divergent/convergent), improve prompts with 7-dimension framework, and apply decision frameworks (RICE, weighted scoring, first principles, pre-mortem).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Imagine the project has already shipped and failed catastrophically — work backwards from the failure to identify the most likely causes BEFORE building. Forces concrete risk identification, not vague "what could go wrong" lists.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

The definition of done. Run before calling any change done, fixed, verified, ready or shippable, for features and bug fixes alike. Checks the pre-mortem was answered, proves the tests fail on the old code, gets a fresh breaker review, runs CI's own checks in a clean checkout, checks the user-facing words, and writes the evidence report. Also use when asked "is it done", "is it ready", "did you verify it" or "can we merge".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。