Starter: interpret a council run's verdict artifacts — quorum, dissent, cross-lab validity, and what to do next
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Write an AI-optimized PRD using multi-AI orchestration — use when scoping a new feature or product
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。
Host: Codex CLI — This skill was designed for Claude Code and adapted for Codex. Cross-reference commands use installed skill names in Codex rather than
/octo:*slash commands. Use the active Codex shell and subagent tools. Do not claim a provider, model, or host subagent is available until the current session exposes it. For host tool equivalents, seeskills/blocks/codex-host-adapter.md.
DO NOT call Skill() again. DO NOT load any more skills. Execute directly.
Before writing ANY PRD content, you MUST ask the user these questions:
I need to understand your requirements before creating the PRD.
1. **Target Users**: Who will use this? (developers, end-users, admins, etc.)
2. **Core Problem**: What specific pain point does this solve? Any metrics?
3. **Success Criteria**: How will you measure if this succeeds?
4. **Constraints**: Any technical, budget, or timeline constraints?
5. **Existing Context**: Is this greenfield or integrating with existing systems?
Please answer these (even briefly) so I can create a more targeted PRD.
WAIT for user response before proceeding to Phase 1.
If user says "skip" or provides the feature description inline, extract what you can and note assumptions.
Only search if topic is unfamiliar. Limit to 2 web searches max:
Do NOT over-research. 60 seconds max for this phase.
Structure:
After drafting the PRD but BEFORE self-scoring, dispatch the draft to a second provider for adversarial review. A single-model PRD has blind spots — cross-provider challenge surfaces wrong assumptions, uncovered scenarios, and contradictory requirements.
Dispatch the PRD draft to a different provider (Codex, Antigravity, or Sonnet as fallback) with this prompt:
"Challenge this PRD. What assumptions are wrong? What user scenarios are missing? What requirements contradict each other? What will the first user complaint be? What risk does this PRD ignore?"
After receiving the challenge:
Adversarial review: appliedSkip with --fast or when user requests speed over thoroughness. See prd.md command for full dispatch syntax.
Score against 100-point framework:
Write to user-specified filename or generate based on feature name.
START WITH PHASE 0 CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS NOW.
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。
Starter: interpret a council run's verdict artifacts — quorum, dissent, cross-lab validity, and what to do next
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Starter: frame a decision as a multi-model debate — picks sides, seats providers, and launches /octo:debate with a well-formed motion
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Multi-AI requirements scoping using available external providers (Double Diamond Define phase). Priority triggers: octo define, octo scope, co-define, co-scope. DO NOT use for implementation, research, review/validation, or built-in commands.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Multi-AI validation, scoring, and review using available external providers (Double Diamond Deliver phase)
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Multi-AI implementation using available external providers (Double Diamond Develop phase). DO NOT use for simple code edits, reading/reviewing code, built-in commands, or trivial single-file changes.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。
Multi-AI research using available external providers (Double Diamond Discover phase) - Questions about best practices, patterns, or ecosystem research PRIORITY TRIGGERS (always invoke): "octo research", "octo discover", "co-research", "co-discover" DO NOT use for: simple file searches (use Read/Grep), questions Claude can answer directly, debugging issues (use skill-debug), or "what are my options" for decision support.
中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。