메뉴
Finds the minimum that satisfies the actual requirement — stripping everything wanted but not needed. Triggers: 'minimum viable', 'what's the minimum', 'strip this back', 'what do we actually need', 'scope reduction', 'simplify the requirement'.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Master orchestration skill. Takes any situation in plain English, identifies the underlying goal, designs a multi-skill reasoning workflow, and executes it sequentially — feeding each skill's output into the next. Use when you say 'help me think through this', 'I need to figure out what to do', 'where do I start', or any time you want structured thinking applied end-to-end rather than routed to a single tool.
Tests whether the parts of something form a unified whole — finding the jarring inconsistencies that accumulate when different contributors work without a shared vision. TRIGGERS: 'coherence check', 'does this feel unified', 'something feels off', 'inconsistent', 'check the whole', 'does this hang together'.
Tests whether a solution is more complex than it needs to be — distinguishing necessary complexity from accidental complexity that accreted over time. TRIGGERS: 'elegance test', 'is this too complex', 'over-engineered', 'is there a simpler way', 'does this feel right'.
Identifies the underlying formal pattern at work — because most successful designs, arguments, and solutions share deep structural patterns, and naming the pattern unlocks the playbook. TRIGGERS: 'what pattern is this', 'pattern recognition', 'why does this work', 'identify the form', 'what structure is at play', 'what archetype is this'.
Finds the simpler version while preserving what matters — not arbitrary reduction, but finding the core and discarding what is not it. TRIGGERS: 'find the simple version', 'simplify this', 'what's the essence', 'less but better', 'strip it back', 'what could we remove'.
Entry point for the aesthetic toolkit. Routes to the right aesthetic skill based on your situation. Use when you say 'aesthetic', 'check the design', 'does this feel right', 'is this elegant', 'is this too complex', 'what pattern is this', 'find the simpler version', or want an aesthetic lens applied without knowing which specific tool fits.
| name | s4h-constraint-scope-reduction |
| description | Finds the minimum that satisfies the actual requirement — stripping everything wanted but not needed. Triggers: 'minimum viable', 'what's the minimum', 'strip this back', 'what do we actually need', 'scope reduction', 'simplify the requirement'. |
Scope grows because wants accumulate alongside needs, and no one separates them. This skill forces that separation. The goal is not to build less — it is to find the version where every element is doing real work, and nothing is there because it sounded good in the planning meeting.
Step 1: State the Full Current Scope List everything in the current plan, feature set, or requirement. Be complete — you can only strip what you've named.
Framing check: Confirm the constraint and the goal it is blocking before continuing. State what you've identified — the specific scope being reduced and the core job it must accomplish — in one sentence, then use AskUserQuestion:
Step 2: Find the Core Job Ask: what is the single verb this must do? Not what it should do, what it must do. Strip all nouns and adjectives until only the job remains. "A user can complete a purchase" is a job. "A seamless, intuitive checkout experience" is not.
Step 3: Classify Each Element — Must or Want For every element in scope: is it required for the core job (must) or desired beyond it (want)? Apply pressure to musts — if you removed it, would the core job fail?
Step 4: Remove All Wants and Test Drop every want. Confirm: can the core job still be done? If yes, the wants were not load- bearing. If no, you've found a hidden must — reclassify and investigate why it felt optional.
Step 5: Simplify the Musts For each must: is there a simpler way to achieve the same outcome? Simpler means fewer moving parts, less code, lower cost, or faster delivery — not necessarily less effort to design.
Step 6: State the Minimum Viable Version Write the minimum scope in a single paragraph. It should be possible to build from this description without the original scope document.
Before proceeding, use the AskUserQuestion tool. State your interpretation of the situation in 1–2 sentences — what is being analyzed and what the core question is — then ask:
Proceed based on their selection. If the user reframes, incorporate the correction before running any analysis.
Current scope:
[Bulleted list of everything in scope]
Core job (the verb):
[Single sentence]
Must vs Want classification:
| Element | Must / Want | Reason |
|---|---|---|
What was removed and why it's safe to remove:
[Brief list — each removal with one-line justification]
Minimum viable scope:
[Single paragraph — buildable without further clarification]
The most common mistake is reclassifying wants as musts when pressure is applied. Challenge every must: "if we launched without this, what actually breaks?" The answer is usually "nothing breaks, someone would be annoyed."
After delivering this output, use AskUserQuestion to offer the next move:
/s4h-decision-criteria-weighting — Evaluate options within the reduced scope/s4h-resource-allocation-analysis — Reallocate for the new scope/s4h-decision-premortem-analysis — Stress-test the reduced scope plan