Skip to main content

ck-predict

5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes.

Informations de source

Dépôt
phuc-nt/my-translator
Dernière activité de la source
9 mai 2026 à 17:04
Langue détectée de SKILL.md
anglais
Étoiles
1 300
Forks
410

Options d'installation

Le prompt qui vérifie d'abord la source est sélectionné par défaut. Vous pouvez passer à une commande directe ou télécharger une copie locale.

Vérifiez les fichiers source

Lisez SKILL.md et les fichiers associés affichés par SkillsMP avant de décider de l'installer.

Affichage de SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instructions source · Aperçu en lecture seule
name
ck:predict
description
5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes.
argument-hint
<feature description or change proposal> [--files <glob>]
metadata
{"author":"claudekit","attribution":"Multi-persona prediction pattern adapted from autoresearch by Udit Goenka (MIT)","license":"MIT","version":"1.0.0"}
# ck:predict — Multi-Persona Pre-Analysis Five expert personas independently analyze a proposed change, then debate conflicts to produce a consensus verdict before a single line of code is written. ## When to Use - Before implementing a major or high-risk feature - Before a significant refactor or architecture change - Evaluating competing technical approaches - Stress-testing assumptions in a proposed design ## When NOT to Use - Trivial or low-risk changes (use `ck:debug` for bugs, `ck:plan` for already-decided tasks) - Already-approved work with no open design questions - Pure dependency upgrades with no API changes --- ## The 5 Personas | Persona | Focus | Core Questions | |---------|-------|----------------| | **Architect** | System design, scalability, coupling | Does this fit the architecture? Will it scale? What new coupling does it introduce? | | **Security** | Attack surface, data protection, auth | What can be abused? Where is data exposed? Are auth boundaries respected? | | **Performance** | Latency, memory, queries, bundle size | What is the latency impact? N+1 queries? Memory leaks? Bundle bloat? | | **UX** | User experience, accessibility, error states | Is this intuitive? What does the error state look like? Accessible on mobile? | | **Devil's Advocate** | Hidden assumptions, simpler alternatives | Why not do nothing? What is the simplest alternative? Which assumption could be wrong? | --- ## Debate Protocol 1. **Read** the proposed change/feature description from the argument 2. **Read relevant code** if file paths are provided (grep for affected areas) 3. **Each persona analyzes independently** — do not let personas influence each other during this phase 4. **Identify agreements** — points where all (or 4+) personas align 5. **Identify conflicts** — points where personas meaningfully disagree 6. **Weigh tradeoffs** — for each conflict, evaluate which concern has higher impact 7. **Produce verdict** — GO / CAUTION / STOP with actionable recommendations --- ## Output Format ``` ## Prediction Report: [proposal title] ## Verdict: GO | CAUTION | STOP ### Agreements (all personas align) - [Point 1 — what they all agree on] - [Point 2] ### Conflicts & Resolutions | Topic | Architect | Security | Performance | UX | Devil's Advocate | Resolution | |-------|-----------|----------|-------------|-----|-----------------|------------| | [Issue] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [Recommendation] | ### Risk Summary | Risk | Severity | Mitigation | |------|----------|------------| | [Risk description] | Critical/High/Medium/Low | [Concrete action] | ### Recommendations 1. [Action item — rationale] 2. [Action item — rationale] 3. [Action item — rationale] ``` --- ## Verdict Levels | Verdict | Meaning | |---------|---------| | **GO** | All personas aligned, no critical risks, proceed with confidence | | **CAUTION** | Concerns exist but are manageable — mitigations identified, proceed carefully | | **STOP** | Critical unresolved issue found — needs redesign or more information before proceeding | ### STOP Triggers (any one is sufficient) - Security persona identifies auth bypass or data exposure with no viable mitigation - Architect identifies fundamental design incompatibility requiring significant rework - Performance persona identifies unacceptable latency or query explosion with no workaround - Devil's Advocate exposes a false assumption that invalidates the entire approach --- ## Integration with Other Skills | Workflow Step | Skill | How | |---------------|-------|-----| | Deepen risk scenarios | `ck:scenario` | Feed Risk Summary rows as feature description | | Create implementation plan | `ck:plan` | Attach Recommendations as constraints to planner | | High-risk feature implementation | `ck:cook` | Reference CAUTION/STOP items as acceptance gates | --- ## Example Invocations ``` /ck:predict "Add WebSocket support for real-time notifications" /ck:predict "Migrate authentication from JWT to session cookies" /ck:predict "Add multi-tenancy to the database layer" /ck:predict "Replace REST API with GraphQL" --files src/api/**/*.ts ```
Voir sur GitHub