「pre-mortem」の検索結果

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.

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。

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".

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。

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。

Run a pre-mortem risk analysis on a PRD or launch plan. Categorizes risks as Tigers (real problems), Paper Tigers (overblown concerns), and Elephants (unspoken worries), then classifies as launch-blocking, fast-follow, or track. Use when preparing for launch, stress-testing a product plan, or identifying what could go wrong.

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 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.

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。

Act as a project-management copilot (PM/PMO) for the delivery loop: charters, plans and schedules, estimates, risk registers, status reports, scope changes, stakeholder communication, meeting actions, lessons learned, and portfolio roll-ups, in a per-project `_project/` workspace. Use whenever the user wants to start, plan, track, rescue, or report on a project: "kick off this project", "make a project plan / timeline / WBS", "what date can I commit to", "build a risk register", "run a pre-mortem", "write the weekly status report", "the deadline slipped, what now", "turn this meeting into action items", "review my project portfolio", in any language ("quản lý dự án", "gestion de projet", "プロジェクト管理", "项目管理"), even when they never say "project management". Also use whenever a `_project/` directory exists and the user asks about schedule, deadline, risk, status, scope, budget, or stakeholders. Not for what to build (product-manager) or company-level bets (strategy-board).

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).

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 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.

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。

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).

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。

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

Push the LLM to reconsider, refine, and improve its recent output. Use when user asks for deeper critique or mentions a known deeper critique method, e.g. socratic, first principles, pre-mortem, red team

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。

Pre-mortem plan analysis. Imagine the plan failed 12 months from now and work backwards to find the weaknesses. Surfaces assumptions, dependencies, and execution risks before committing resources. Use when before significant resource commitment, before presenting to a board or investors, when feedback has been one-sidedly positive, or when there is pressure to move fast and figure it out later.

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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.

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 challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, stress test assumptions, audit evidence quality, or find blind spots before committing. Do NOT use for building plans, making decisions, or generating solutions — this skill only challenges and critiques. For a multi-agent panel that challenges and then commits to a verdict, use the-jury.

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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.

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。

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

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。

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.

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。

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).

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。

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.

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。

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

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。

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.

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。