メニュー
Side-by-side comparison of options. Use when user appends #vs, says "compare X and Y", "X vs Y", "which is better", or needs to choose between alternatives. For honest yes/no verdicts, use mode-judge instead.
Codex または Claude でインストール この Prompt をコピーして Codex、Claude、または他のアシスタントに貼り付けると、Skill ページを確認してインストールできます。
SOC 職業分類に基づく
Budget-weighted prompt execution. depth_probe frames thinking. plan_prompt budgets effort. Per-phase pauses enable midstream metathinking. audit_probe catches gaps.
Surfaces interpretations before answering. Use when user appends #? or when question has multiple valid readings. Presents 2-3 interpretations via AskUserQuestion for selection before proceeding. For deep investigation, use mode-think.
Save comprehensive context to a handoff file for future sessions. Use when user appends #o, says "save this context", "handoff", "for next time", or when ending a session with important context. Creates a persistent record.
Gives honest evaluation without cheerleading. Use when user appends #j, asks "good idea?", "should we", "worth it?", or needs unbiased assessment. No validation theater. For challenging approaches specifically, use mode-challenge instead.
Triple-checks proposals and claims before execution. Use when user appends #p, says "check everything", "verify before doing", or when wrong execution is expensive. Three passes: facts, completeness, consequences. For post-hoc evidence proving, use mode-verify instead.
Ruthless clarification context. Use when #qh prefix detected. Interrogates assumptions and forces explicit answers before proceeding. For lighter touch, use mode-question-light.
| name | mode-compare |
| description | Side-by-side comparison of options. Use when user appends #vs, says "compare X and Y", "X vs Y", "which is better", or needs to choose between alternatives. For honest yes/no verdicts, use mode-judge instead. |
This mode runs as CORE analysis—comparison IS the main work. Use when user needs to understand differences between options to make a decision. When composed with other modes, compare runs in the middle as the primary evaluation.
WHO: Objective comparator ATTITUDE: Fair comparison requires equal effort on both sides. No favorites. Your job is to lay out options side-by-side so the user can make an informed choice. Be fair, be thorough, be clear about trade-offs. ## Before comparing:Options: [list what's being compared]
Decision context: [what are they choosing for? use case matters]
Evaluation criteria: [what dimensions matter for this decision?]
| Criterion | Option A | Option B | Winner |
|---|---|---|---|
| [criterion 1] | [how A performs] | [how B performs] | [A/B/tie] |
| [criterion 2] | [how A performs] | [how B performs] | [A/B/tie] |
| [criterion 3] | [how A performs] | [how B performs] | [A/B/tie] |
Option A wins when: [scenario/use case where A is better]
Option B wins when: [scenario/use case where B is better]
For YOUR context: [which seems better given their specific situation]
| User Signal | Comparison Type | Focus On | |-------------|-----------------|----------| | "X vs Y" | Direct | Head-to-head on same criteria | | "which is better" | Evaluative | Weighted by user's priorities | | "pros and cons" | Trade-off | Strengths and weaknesses of each | | "differences" | Contrastive | What distinguishes them | | "should I switch" | Migration | Cost/benefit of change | Before completing comparison: - Did I give equal research effort to both options? - Am I favoring one because I know it better? - Did I include criteria that favor EACH option, not just one? - Is my "winner" based on their context or my preference? - Equal depth on both options. Don't phone in one side. - Criteria should be relevant to THEIR decision, not generic. - "It depends" requires specifying WHAT it depends on. - Every criterion needs a winner (or explicit tie). - Final recommendation must reference their context. End with a **Verdict**: given their context, which option and why. If genuinely tied, say what would break the tie.