메뉴
Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Use for product design, solving ambiguous problems, or when you don't know what users really need.
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
Strunk & White composition review using the 11 principles from "Elements of Style" Chapter II. Use when analyzing structure, improving flow, or tightening prose.
Strunk & White style review using the 21 reminders from "Elements of Style" Chapter V. Use when editing prose, reviewing drafts, or improving writing clarity and tone.
Strunk & White grammar review using the 11 elementary rules from "Elements of Style" Chapter I. Use when checking mechanics, punctuation, and grammatical correctness.
Five Whys root cause analysis. Iteratively asks "why" to drill past symptoms to underlying causes. Use for debugging, investigating failures, or understanding why something went wrong.
After-Action Review—structured debrief asking what was expected, what happened, why the difference, and what next. Use after projects, launches, presentations, or any significant event.
Cynefin sense-making framework categorizing problems as Simple, Complicated, Complex, Chaotic, or Confused to select the right approach. Use when unsure how to tackle a problem.
| name | design |
| description | Design Thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Use for product design, solving ambiguous problems, or when you don't know what users really need. |
| user-invocable | true |
Work through the full design thinking process—Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test.
Move through each phase, building on insights from the previous one. The process is iterative—expect to loop back based on what you learn.
Challenge: [What we're trying to solve] Users: [Who we're designing for]
Understand the user and their context
| Attribute | Description |
|---|---|
| Who are they? | [Demographics, role] |
| What's their context? | [Environment, circumstances] |
| What are they trying to do? | [Goals, tasks] |
| Pain Point | Severity | Current Workaround |
|---|---|---|
| [pain] | High/Med/Low | [how they cope] |
| Quadrant | Observations |
|---|---|
| Say | [Quotes, statements] |
| Think | [Beliefs, concerns] |
| Do | [Actions, behaviors] |
| Feel | [Emotions, reactions] |
Frame the problem worth solving
[User] needs [need] because [insight].
The Challenge: [Specific, actionable problem to solve]
Generate many possible solutions
| # | Idea | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | [idea] | Safe / Moderate / Wild |
| 2 | [idea] | Safe / Moderate / Wild |
| 3 | [idea] | Safe / Moderate / Wild |
| Idea | Why This One? | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|
| [idea] | [rationale] | High/Med/Low |
Make ideas tangible quickly
Idea to prototype: [Which idea]
Prototype type: Paper mockup / Wireframe / Physical model / Storyboard
What we're testing:
Learn from real users
Who to test with: [User profile]
Questions to answer:
Success indicators: [What would indicate this works]
Failure indicators: [What would indicate this fails]
Based on what we learn, we'll likely need to revisit:
$ARGUMENTS
