Detect common technical and organizational anti-patterns in proposals, architectures, and plans. Use when strategic-cto-mentor needs to identify red flags before they become problems.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Identify and challenge implicit assumptions in plans, proposals, and technical decisions. Use when strategic-cto-mentor needs to surface hidden assumptions and wishful thinking before they become costly mistakes.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
查看安装方法安装前可以查看交给 AI 代理的指令内容。
Systematically identifies and stress-tests assumptions that are treated as facts but may not be validated.
Most project failures trace back to invalid assumptions:
The cost of invalid assumptions compounds over time. A bad assumption in week 1 can waste months of work.
Assumptions about how long things will take.
Common patterns:
Challenge questions:
Assumptions about team capacity and availability.
Common patterns:
Challenge questions:
Assumptions about system capabilities and constraints.
Common patterns:
Challenge questions:
Assumptions about market, users, and business outcomes.
Common patterns:
Challenge questions:
Assumptions about factors outside your control.
Common patterns:
Challenge questions:
Read the proposal and identify statements that are treated as facts but aren't validated:
Flag statements containing:
For each assumption, categorize:
| Category | Risk if Wrong | Validation Difficulty |
|---|---|---|
| Timeline | Project delay | Medium (compare to past) |
| Resource | Execution failure | Medium (check market) |
| Technical | System failure | High (requires testing) |
| Business | Wasted investment | High (requires market validation) |
| External | Plans disrupted | Variable |
For each significant assumption:
### Assumption: [Statement]
**Category**: [Type]
**Stated or Implicit**: [Was it stated or hidden?]
**Evidence Supporting**:
- [Evidence 1]
- [Evidence 2]
**Evidence Against**:
- [Counter-evidence 1]
- [Counter-evidence 2]
**Risk if Wrong**:
- [Impact on timeline]
- [Impact on cost]
- [Impact on success]
**Validation Method**:
- [How to test this assumption]
- [Cost/time to validate]
**Verdict**:
[ ] Valid - Evidence supports
[ ] Questionable - Needs validation
[ ] Invalid - Evidence contradicts
[ ] Unknown - Cannot assess
Focus on assumptions that are:
Compare assumption to external data.
Template:
"You assume [X]. Industry data shows [Y]. What makes you different?"
Example:
"You assume you can hire 3 senior engineers in 2 months. The average time-to-hire for senior engineers in your market is 4-6 months. What's your strategy to beat that?"
Compare to organization's past performance.
Template:
"You assume [X]. Last time you attempted [similar thing], it took [Y]. What's changed?"
Example:
"You assume 8 weeks for the microservices migration. Your last infrastructure migration took 5 months. What's different this time?"
Push assumption to failure point.
Template:
"You assume [X]. What happens when [stress scenario]?"
Example:
"You assume the system handles 10K concurrent users. What happens during a flash sale with 50K? What's the failure mode?"
Trace assumption to its dependencies.
Template:
"For [assumption] to be true, what else must be true?"
Example:
"For your 6-week timeline to work, you need: (1) API specs finalized by week 1, (2) no scope changes, (3) 100% team availability, (4) no production incidents. How realistic is that?"
Consider what happens if assumption is wrong.
Template:
"If [assumption] is wrong, what's the impact? What's your Plan B?"
Example:
"If users don't adopt this feature, what's the fallback? Have you defined failure criteria?"
Red flags that suggest assumption is based on hope rather than evidence:
Reality: Things rarely go perfectly. Add 30-50% buffer.
Reality: Hiring takes 3-6 months for senior roles. Onboarding adds another 2-3 months to productivity.
Reality: Integrations always have edge cases, rate limits, and unexpected behaviors.
Reality: "Everyone" is not a market segment. Validate with actual user research.
Reality: Scaling is non-linear. What works at 10K users may fail at 100K.
When challenging assumptions, provide:
# Assumption Analysis: [Plan/Proposal Name]
## Summary
- **Total Assumptions Identified**: [Count]
- **High-Risk Assumptions**: [Count]
- **Requires Immediate Validation**: [Count]
## Critical Assumptions (Must Validate Before Proceeding)
### Assumption 1: [Statement]
**Category**: Timeline / Resource / Technical / Business / External
**Stated or Implicit**: Stated / Implicit
**The Problem**:
[Why this assumption is questionable]
**Evidence For**:
- [Supporting evidence]
**Evidence Against**:
- [Counter-evidence]
**If Wrong, Impact**:
- Timeline: [Impact]
- Budget: [Impact]
- Success: [Impact]
**How to Validate**:
- [Validation method]
- [Time required]
- [Cost]
**Verdict**: Valid / Questionable / Invalid / Unknown
---
### Assumption 2: [Statement]
[Same format]
---
## Medium-Risk Assumptions (Should Validate)
[List with brief analysis]
## Low-Risk Assumptions (Monitor)
[List]
## Recommendations
### Before Proceeding
1. [Validation action 1]
2. [Validation action 2]
### Risk Mitigation
1. [Mitigation for assumption 1]
2. [Mitigation for assumption 2]
### Contingency Plans Needed
1. [Plan B for assumption 1]
2. [Plan B for assumption 2]
The assumption-challenger skill feeds into the broader validation workflow:
Proposal/Plan
│
▼
[assumption-challenger] → List of assumptions with verdicts
│
▼
[antipattern-detector] → Identified anti-patterns
│
▼
[validation-report-generator] → Final 8-section report
还没有评价。欢迎分享你的使用感受。
无需登录即可发表。欢迎分享使用感受、提问,或说明在哪些环境下无法运行。
还没有评论。来写第一条吧。
Detect common technical and organizational anti-patterns in proposals, architectures, and plans. Use when strategic-cto-mentor needs to identify red flags before they become problems.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Recommend architecture patterns (monolith, microservices, serverless, modular monolith) based on scale, team size, and constraints. Use when cto-architect needs to select the right architectural approach for a new system or migration.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Generate targeted clarifying questions (2-3 max) that challenge vague requirements and extract missing context. Use after request-analyzer identifies clarification needs, before routing to specialist agents. Helps cto-orchestrator avoid delegating unclear requirements.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Infrastructure and development cost estimation for technical projects. Use when planning budgets, evaluating build vs buy decisions, or projecting TCO for architecture choices.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Transform clarified user requests into structured delegation prompts optimized for specialist agents (cto-architect, strategic-cto-mentor, cv-ml-architect). Use after clarification is complete, before routing to specialist agents. Ensures agents receive complete context for effective work.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Deep expertise in ML/CV model selection, training pipelines, and inference architecture. Use when designing machine learning systems, computer vision pipelines, or AI-powered features.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。