440 件 ・ 関連度順
概要と使いどころ
Use when: assumptions audit, audit assumptions, check for hidden assumptions, plan/ticket has ambiguous scope edges, pre-flight before finalizing a ticket, unstated assumptions, or 'what am I assuming'. Surfaces unstated assumptions, ambiguous scope edges, and untested preconditions in a finished plan/ticket/ADR before it is handed to Builder. Optional pass — Architect judges when to apply it; not a mandatory gate on every ticket.
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。
Reads a cash forecast (spreadsheet, model export, pasted table or the narrative that accompanies it) and returns a DRAFT assumptions sheet: every assumption the forecast rests on, stated or implied by the figures, with its value as read, its location in the model, the cash lines it drives, its stated source or "not stated", the evidence that would test it, an owner, and one neutral challenge question, so a reviewer can work through the assumptions one by one. Use when the user asks to "list the assumptions behind this cash forecast", "what is this cash flow forecast assuming", "prepare the challenge questions for the treasury review", "pull out the drivers of the 13-week cash forecast" or "build an assumptions register for the liquidity plan". Do not use for actuals against budget by line, use budget-variance-explainer instead; do not use for the case behind a capital request, use capex-request-pack instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.
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。
RAID log methodology with decision extraction from emails and meeting notes. Use when asked to identify risks, log assumptions, track issues, extract decisions from correspondence, create or update a RAID log, escalate a risk to an issue, assess project risks, validate or challenge assumptions, or capture scope-relevant decisions. Also triggers when the user pastes email chains and asks what decisions were made, or needs to find buried decisions and untested assumptions in correspondence. Trigger on: 'risk report', 'RAID log', 'what are the risks', 'what decisions were made', 'update the risk register', 'what assumptions are we making', 'what could go wrong', 'flag any issues', 'extract decisions from these emails'.
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。
Extract a thesis's load-bearing assumptions and scan for internal contradictions — the falsifiable claims the bull case requires, what would falsify each, and where the thesis's own Risks / Bear Case / research already argue against it. Use when user says "assumptions", "what must be true", "load-bearing assumptions", or "does [TICKER] contradict itself".
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。
Prioritize assumptions using an Impact × Risk matrix and suggest experiments for each. Use when triaging a list of assumptions, deciding what to test first, or applying the assumption prioritization canvas.
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。
Identify risky assumptions for a new product idea across 8 risk categories including Go-to-Market, Strategy, and Team. Use when evaluating startup risks, assessing a new product concept, or mapping assumptions for a new venture.
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。
Extract and risk-rate hidden assumptions in a product brief or PRD. Use when asked to review a product brief for assumptions, audit a PRD for risks, find hidden assumptions, validate product plans, or run an assumption analysis. Produces a prioritised assumption map with confidence and impact scores, recommended validation methods, and critical assumption flags.
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。
Surface the hidden assumptions a plan or belief rests on, then test what happens when each one is wrong. Use when asked what am I assuming here, check my assumptions, what if I'm wrong about, or stress-test my thinking. Produces the unstated assumptions your conclusion depends on (ranked by how load-bearing they are), a flip of each to see which one breaking would change everything, and the cheapest way to check the riskiest ones — because the assumption you didn't know you were making is what sinks plans.
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 when a framed and root-caused problem needs its assumptions made explicit before design or planning begins — explicit Assumptions, Unknowns, and a Validation plan. This should trigger when an issue's Assumption Analysis point of view needs evaluation, or when a maintainer directly asks to surface hidden assumptions and unknowns before committing to an approach. Part of Plinth Toolkit
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。
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.
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 when surfacing the assumptions underlying an analytical judgment, the user asks "what are we assuming?" / "are these assumptions still valid?", or before publishing a high-impact assessment. Standard SAT applied during major assessments.
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。
Ensure design docs explicitly capture risks, assumptions, and open questions with owners, deadlines, and mitigation plans.
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。
計画やアイデアを質問で掘り下げ、決定同士の依存関係を整理します。推奨案を添えた質問を段階的に重ね、曖昧な前提や未決事項を確認して共通理解を築くスキルです。
将来のキャッシュフローを現在価値に換算し、企業価値と1株当たりの評価額を算出するExcelを作成します。前提を変えた再計算やシナリオ比較、感度分析も扱います。
企業買収が一株当たり利益に与える影響をExcelで試算するスキル。買収価格、資金調達、相乗効果の前提を整理し、条件別の比較表と説明用の要約を作成します。
Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for reverse engineering, malware, DFIR, firmware, pwnable, and native exploit challenges. Use when the user asks to reverse a binary, unpack a sample, inspect a memory dump or PCAP, recover malware behavior, debug a crash, or build or verify an exploit chain under sandbox assumptions. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for Kerberos delegation, SPN trust edges, S4U abuse, RBCD, constrained or unconstrained delegation, and service-ticket acceptance. Use when the user asks about constrained delegation, unconstrained delegation, RBCD, S4U, SPNs, ticket acceptance, or how a Kerberos trust edge turns into effective privilege under sandbox assumptions. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.
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。
Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for kernel attack surface, namespace and cgroup boundaries, container isolation assumptions, syscall paths, and escape primitive verification. Use when the user asks to analyze container-to-host escape paths, kernel exploit prerequisites, namespace crossover, capability misuse, or prove whether an exploit primitive crosses the sandbox boundary. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.
日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。
Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for malware configuration recovery, staged payload boundaries, beacon parameter extraction, and IOC decoding. Use when the user asks to recover a malware config, decode C2 or beacon fields, unpack staged payloads, extract bot or campaign IDs, or tie recovered config to observed protocol behavior under sandbox assumptions. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.
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。
Internal downstream skill for ctf-sandbox-orchestrator. CTF-sandbox workflow for AI-agent, prompt-injection, MCP or toolchain, cloud, container, CI/CD, and supply-chain challenges. Use when the user asks to analyze prompt-to-tool flows, retrieval poisoning, mounted secrets, deployment drift, runtime-vs-manifest mismatches, registry provenance, or CI-produced artifacts under sandbox assumptions. Use only after `$ctf-sandbox-orchestrator` has already established sandbox assumptions and routed here.
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。
Update financial models with new data — quarterly earnings, management guidance, macro changes, or revised assumptions. Adjusts estimates, recalculates valuation, and flags material changes. Use after earnings, guidance updates, or when assumptions need refreshing. Triggers on "update model", "plug earnings", "refresh estimates", "update numbers for [company]", "new guidance", or "revise estimates".
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。
Design experiments to test assumptions for an existing product — prototypes, A/B tests, spikes, and other low-effort validation methods. Use when validating assumptions, testing feature ideas cheaply, or planning product experiments.
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。
Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive review.
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。
Identify risky assumptions for a feature idea in an existing product across Value, Usability, Viability, and Feasibility. Uses multi-perspective devil's advocate thinking. Use when stress-testing a feature idea, doing risk assessment, or preparing for assumption mapping.
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。