「dissent」の検索結果

複数の視点でまとめた重要な意思決定の草案に、Codexによる外部批評を一度追加します。結論の弱点や見落とし、反対意見の扱いを確認するスキルです。

• 判断が難しい重要な草案の検討
• 草案にない失敗の可能性の確認
• 強い反対意見の見落としの確認

正解が一つに定まらない判断を、長期的な影響、前提への疑問、実行の現実性、失敗リスクの四つの視点で検討し、反対意見も見える形で推奨案をまとめるスキル。

• 今すぐ公開するか改善を待つか決めたいとき
• 段階的展開と一斉展開を比較したいとき
• 範囲の縮小と長期的な狙いを検討したいとき

/cs:post-mortem <decision> — Honest retrospective on an executed decision, scored against original assumptions and dissent. Closes the strategic sprint loop. Use when a decision hits its 90-day review checkpoint or its kill criteria trigger — e.g. scoring last quarter's pricing change against its pre-committed success metrics.

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 question, decision, plan, tradeoff, or claim needs a rigorous verdict and one perspective is not enough. Spawns a panel of 3 to 5 subagent jurors that form independent blind opinions, deliberate anonymously under an anti-anchoring and anti-sycophancy protocol, and return one committed verdict with confidence, preserved dissent, and a concrete next action. Domain-agnostic across engineering, architecture, data, product, hiring, strategy, vendor choice, build-vs-buy, and research design. Trigger phrases include "convene a jury", "have agents debate and decide", "get a panel to decide", "multi-agent decision", "stress-test this and decide", "monte um juri", "tribunal de agentes", "painel para decidir". Do NOT use to only critique without deciding (use the-fool for that), to build a plan or write the solution itself, or for simple factual lookups.

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。

Starter: interpret a council run's verdict artifacts — quorum, dissent, cross-lab validity, and what to do next

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。

Verification-first methodology for the post-WWII tribunals: the IMT at Nuremberg, the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals, and the IMTFE at Tokyo. Citations are verified against the official records (Blue/Green Series, Pritchard-Zaide) and the digital archives (Avalon, Harvard NTP, UVA IMTFE). Guards the four classic traps (IMT vs NMT; Nuremberg vs Tokyo; Charter article numbers; majority judgment vs separate opinions, e.g. the Pal dissent). Research aid, not legal advice. Part of the open-source "Skills for International Justice" library — methodology: github.com/jeannesulzer/international-criminal-tribunals-skills

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。

Arbitrator research tool for investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS). The tool can summarize arbitrators' experience, with deliverables grounded in primary documents; it can also help find arbitrators based on the issues faced in a particular case. Use when the user asks about an arbitrator ("tell me about arbitrator X", "X, Y and Z"), wants help choosing or shortlisting arbitrators for a case, or asks about appointments, dissents, issue track records (e.g. FET, expropriation), challenge risk, double-hatting, or tribunal composition. Profiles are grounded in the UNCTAD ISDS Navigator dataset plus targeted live lookups (ICSID); deep verification retrieves the actual decisions. Sibling of isds-research.

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。

Convene a roundtable of sub-agents that debate a decision or proposal from opposing perspectives — parallel independent statements, anonymous cross-review, then a chaired verdict reporting consensus and dissent.

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。

Engineering ethics covering safety, professional codes of conduct, public welfare responsibility, whistleblowing, case studies (Challenger, Columbia, Hyatt Regency, Bhopal, Therac-25), and the ethical dimensions of design decisions. Includes the NSPE Code of Ethics, the iron ring tradition, risk communication, informed consent in engineering, and the duty to dissent. Use when analyzing ethical dimensions of engineering decisions, teaching professional responsibility, or reviewing designs for safety and public welfare.

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。

当用户需要做重大决策、团队存在群体思维、或想将决策权下放到一线时触发此技能。帮助建立知情指挥决策模型，让最有信息的人做最终决定。

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。

Turns one decision discussion (meeting transcript, chat thread, email chain or notes) into a DRAFT one-page decision memo: the decision as stated, status, options considered, evidence cited, dissent recorded verbatim, owner, effective date and review date, with UNKNOWN for anything the discussion did not settle. Use when the user asks to "write up the decision", "record what we decided", "capture the decision from this thread", "draft the decision memo" or "add this to the decision log". Do not use for full minutes or action items, use transcript-to-actions instead; for a technical design decision, use architecture-decision-record; for a paper seeking a decision not yet taken, use board-paper-skeleton. 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。

Debate multi-agente: 2-4 perspectivas (PM, Arquiteto, QA, Security) debatem decisao tecnica. Output: decisao + rationale + dissenting opinions → ADR. Inspirado no Party Mode do BMAD-METHOD.

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。