メニュー
Use when comparing 3-5 solutions to generate a decision report with TCO, status quo risks, and conclusion-first recommendations.
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
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob","WebSearch","WebFetch"] |
| description | Use when comparing 3-5 solutions to generate a decision report with TCO, status quo risks, and conclusion-first recommendations. |
| name | write-report |
| trigger | 솔루션 비교 보고서, 기술 선정 보고서, 벤더 평가, TCO 분석, write comparison report, technology evaluation, decision support report, 솔루션 비교 분석, 기술 도입 제안서, TCO 비용 분석, 가중 평점 매트릭스, 역피라미드 보고서, Executive Summary 작성, 현상 유지 리스크 평가, 솔루션 선정 가이드, vendor comparison report, weighted score matrix, business case report, technology selection guide, cost benefit analysis, Pugh matrix screening, status quo analysis, buy vs build decision, RAG visualization report, Must-have criteria evaluation, CEO one-pager, C-Suite briefing, 기술 도입 비용 분석, 무행동 비용 리스크, 솔루션 선정 안티패턴 수정, weighted score matrix report, total cost of ownership analysis, solution comparison matrix, vendor selection process, business justification report, 기술 도입 의사결정 지원, 비교 평가 매트릭스, Pugh 매트릭스 스크리닝, 역피라미드 구조 보고서, 현상 유지 대안 분석, TCO 3 년 분석, 솔루션 비교 가이드라인 준수, Executive Summary 재작성, 기술 도입 비즈니스 케이스, weighted scoring model, vendor assessment report, solution comparison framework, decision matrix report, cost analysis report, technology adoption report, strategic technology report, solution evaluation guide, business impact analysis, 기술 도입 제안서 작성, 솔루션 비교 평가서, 벤더 선정 보고서, TCO 총소유비용 분석, 역피라미드 방식 보고서, 현상 유지 리스크 분석, 기술 도입 의사결정, 솔루션 비교 매트릭스, 가중치 평가 모델, 비즈니스 가치 분석, 기술 도입 전략 보고서, Pugh matrix for screening, 3-5 year TCO calculation, status quo risk assessment, inverse pyramid report, conclusion first report, CEO one-pager report, C-Suite briefing deck, weighted scoring with must-haves, RAG status chart, solution comparison with TCO, vendor selection with Pugh matrix, technology decision framework, business case for technology, cost of inaction analysis, solution evaluation matrix, strategic vendor comparison, technology roadmap decision, weighted criteria evaluation, total cost of ownership 3-5 years, status quo option analysis, executive summary with recommendation, decision support with TCO, technology selection matrix, vendor comparison with risk, business value analysis report, technology investment decision, solution comparison with Pugh, weighted score report generation, technology adoption strategy, cost benefit analysis with TCO, vendor assessment with criteria, solution comparison guide, technology evaluation framework, decision matrix for technology, technology selection report, vendor comparison analysis, TCO analysis report, solution comparison with status quo, technology decision support, business case technology, technology selection criteria, vendor evaluation report, solution comparison matrix generation, technology adoption cost analysis, strategic technology decision, solution evaluation report, technology comparison guide, vendor selection framework, technology decision report, solution comparison with weighted scores, technology evaluation with TCO, vendor comparison with business case, technology selection with risk analysis, solution comparison with executive summary, technology decision with Pugh matrix, vendor assessment with TCO, solution comparison with status quo option, technology evaluation with weighted criteria, vendor selection with decision matrix, technology adoption with cost analysis, strategic decision support, technology selection with business justification, solution comparison with risk assessment, vendor comparison with weighted scores, technology evaluation with executive summary, decision support with status quo, technology selection with TCO and risk, solution comparison with Pugh and TCO, vendor assessment with business case, technology decision with weighted criteria, solution evaluation with executive summary, technology adoption with decision matrix, vendor selection with risk and TCO, technology comparison with business value, solution comparison with strategic alignment, vendor evaluation with executive summary, technology selection with cost benefit, solution comparison with weighted matrix, technology decision with status quo risk, vendor comparison with TCO analysis, technology evaluation with decision support, solution comparison with Pugh screening, vendor assessment with weighted scores, technology adoption with business case, strategic technology evaluation, solution comparison with risk and cost, vendor selection with executive summary, technology decision with weighted criteria, solution evaluation with TCO analysis, technology selection with Pugh matrix, vendor comparison with business justification, technology adoption with decision framework, solution comparison with weighted scoring, vendor assessment with status quo, technology decision with cost analysis, solution evaluation with executive summary, technology selection with risk assessment, vendor comparison with TCO and risk, technology evaluation with Pugh matrix, solution comparison with business case, vendor selection with weighted criteria, technology adoption with decision support, strategic vendor comparison, solution comparison with executive summary, technology decision with status quo, vendor assessment with TCO and risk, technology selection with weighted matrix, solution evaluation with business justification, vendor comparison with decision matrix, technology adoption with cost benefit, solution comparison with strategic alignment, vendor selection with executive summary, technology decision with weighted scores, solution evaluation with risk analysis, technology selection with TCO and business case, vendor comparison with weighted criteria, technology adoption with decision support, solution comparison with Pugh and TCO, vendor assessment with executive summary, technology decision with status quo risk, solution evaluation with weighted matrix, technology selection with business justification, vendor comparison with TCO analysis, technology adoption with decision framework, solution comparison with risk and cost, vendor selection with weighted scores, technology decision with executive summary, solution evaluation with Pugh matrix, technology selection with TCO and risk, vendor comparison with business case, technology adoption with weighted criteria, solution comparison with decision matrix, vendor assessment with status quo, technology decision with cost analysis, solution evaluation with executive summary, technology selection with risk assessment, vendor comparison with TCO and business case, technology adoption with decision support, strategic technology decision, solution comparison with weighted scoring, vendor selection with executive summary, technology decision with status quo risk, solution evaluation with TCO analysis, technology selection with Pugh matrix, vendor comparison with business justification, technology adoption with decision framework, solution comparison with risk and cost, vendor assessment with weighted scores, technology decision with executive summary, solution evaluation with business case, technology selection with weighted criteria, vendor comparison with TCO and risk, technology adoption with decision support, solution comparison with Pugh and TCO, vendor selection with executive summary, technology decision with status quo, solution evaluation with weighted matrix, technology selection with business justification, vendor comparison with decision matrix, technology adoption with cost benefit, solution comparison with strategic alignment, vendor assessment with executive summary, technology decision with weighted scores, solution evaluation with risk analysis, technology selection with TCO and business case, vendor comparison with weighted criteria, technology adoption with decision support, solution comparison with Pugh and TCO, vendor assessment with executive summary, technology decision with status quo risk, solution evaluation with weighted matrix, technology selection with business justification, vendor comparison with TCO analysis, technology adoption with decision framework, solution comparison with risk and cost, vendor selection with weighted scores, technology decision with executive summary, solution evaluation with Pugh matrix, technology selection with TCO and risk, vendor comparison with business case, technology adoption with weighted criteria, solution comparison with decision matrix, vendor assessment with status quo, technology decision with cost analysis, solution evaluation with executive summary, technology selection with risk assessment, vendor comparison with TCO and business case, technology adoption with decision support |
| version | 1.0.0 |
.hxsk/research/solution_comparison_report_guide.md 로드 없이 진행 금지NO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WITHOUT CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION FIRST NO RISK ASSESSMENT WITHOUT STATUS QUO OPTION FIRST NO VISUALIZATION WITHOUT SYMBOLS OR PATTERNS FIRST NO COST ANALYSIS WITHOUT 3-5 YEAR TCO CALCULATION FIRST NO EVALUATION CRITERIA WITHOUT MUST-HAVE VS NICE-TO-HAVE DISTINCTION FIRST NO TECHNICAL TERM USAGE WITHOUT PLAIN LANGUAGE TRANSLATION FIRST NO NEW REPORT WITHOUT MEMORY PATTERN RECALL FIRST NO REPORT GENERATION WITHOUT GUIDE LOADING FIRST NO SOLUTION COMPARISON WITHOUT PUGH MATRIX SCREENING IF MORE THAN 5 CANDIDATES FIRST NO WEBFETCH EXECUTION WITHOUT SEQUENTIAL PROCESSING FIRST NO RECOMMENDATION STATEMENT WITHOUT ACTIVE VOICE FIRST NO SCORE PRESENTATION WITHOUT BUSINESS INTERPRETATION FIRST NO RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT PREREQUISITES AND RUNNER-UP ANALYSIS FIRST NO REPORT FINALIZATION WITHOUT MULTI-DEPARTMENT PERSPECTIVE FIRST NO REPORT SAVE WITHOUT STANDARD FILE PATH STRUCTURE FIRST
보고서 작성 요청을 받으면:
.hxsk/research/solution_comparison_report_guide.md 전체를 Read로 로드비교 대상 솔루션별 정보를 수집한다:
역피라미드 원칙 — 결론·추천을 최상단에 배치. 아래 섹션 순서를 따를 것:
기준 카테고리 표준 (프로젝트에 맞게 조정):
| 기준 | 가중치 범위 |
|---|---|
| 기능 적합성 | 20-30% |
| 보안 및 컴플라이언스 | 15-25% |
| TCO (총소유비용) | 15-25% |
| 통합 역량 | 10-20% |
| 벤더 지속성 | 10-15% |
| 확장성 | 5-15% |
| 지원 및 SLA | 5-10% |
| 도입 용이성 | 5-10% |
필수: Must-have(Pass/Fail) vs Nice-to-have(가중 점수) 구분 명시
| 유형 | 용도 |
|---|---|
| 막대 차트 | 최종 점수 비교 (기본 필수) |
| 비교 매트릭스 표 | 기준별 상세 (원점수/가중점수, 행별 최고점 볼드) |
| 신호등(RAG) | Pass/Fail 스캔 (색상+기호 병행 필수, 색맹 접근성) |
| 레이더 차트 | 보조 다차원 비교 (선택) |
보고서 완성 후 반드시 검증:
보고서 작성 중 아래 실수를 감지하면 즉시 수정:
| 안티패턴 | 수정 방향 |
|---|---|
| 결론이 마지막에 위치 | Executive Summary로 이동 |
| 점수표만 있고 해석 없음 | 각 점수의 비즈니스 의미 추가 |
| 가격만으로 비교 | TCO 3-5년 전체 비교로 전환 |
| 전문 용어 미번역 | 괄호 내 일반어 설명 추가 |
| "현상 유지" 옵션 누락 | 무행동 비용·리스크 섹션 추가 |
| 벤더 마케팅 기반 기준 | 비즈니스 문제 기반으로 재구성 |
**[솔루션 X]의 도입을 추천합니다.**
[최고 가중치 기준]에서 최고점을 기록했으며, [N]년 TCO가 차순위 대비
[X]% 낮고, [검증 근거]가 있습니다.
차순위인 [솔루션 Y]는 [강점]에서 근소하게 앞섰으나, [약점]에서 열위였습니다.
단, [전제 조건]이 변경될 경우 [솔루션 Y]를 재평가해야 합니다.
상세 프레임워크, 출처 목록, 정부 조달 템플릿:
→ .hxsk/research/solution_comparison_report_guide.md
보고서는 .hxsk/reports/REPORT-{YYYY-MM-DD}_{slug}.md 경로에 저장한다.
Use when Ground Truth alignment finds memory contamination and the user explicitly requests scoped cleanup with /cleanse.
Use when registering, reviewing, merging, or rebuilding HXSK glossary term definitions after glossary-detect suggests a candidate or the user invokes /define.
Use when staged changes exist requiring qlty checks, logical split detection, or HXSK phase-scoped conventional commit creation.
Use when validating code for circular imports, layer violations, or design doc logic errors before merging architecture-level changes.
Use when .hxsk/.bootstrap-version is missing (fresh install) or exists (verify/update) to initialize HExoskeleton.
Use when shell scripts need linting/formatting before execution or commit to ensure code quality.