메뉴
Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a plan.
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
XP-style plan review that identifies gaps, hidden assumptions, and critical misses. Triggers on 'review the plan', 'check the plan', 'audit the plan'. Reviews plans for YAGNI violations, missing feedback loops, and over-engineering.
Comprehensive code review for quality, security, performance. Triggers on 'review code', 'code review', 'check this PR', 'audit code'.
TDD Production Code Refactoring Process. Triggers on 'tidy up', 'tidy this', 'clean up code'. Use for refactoring production code with test coverage.
Systematically explore an unfamiliar codebase and build a reusable architecture summary. Use for repo onboarding, understanding legacy or inherited code, mapping architecture before a migration or refactor, tracing a bug or feature path, or answering "what does this project do?". Documentation-first, then data flow — ends in a concise technical architecture summary with file:line evidence, not a raw file dump.
Compile deep repository evidence into artifact-bound correctness doctrine — authority/law/proof maps, owned invariants, failure archaeology, and the strongest durable destination for each piece of knowledge, plus an optional minimal repository-specific skill portfolio. Use when the user wants both deep codebase understanding AND durable doctrine, knowledge routing, or repo-specific skill recommendations. Research discoverable facts before asking. Read-only. Not for quick onboarding, one isolated invariant, ordinary implementation, generic review, or direct skill creation.
Run a targeted fresh-eyes blunder pass over code, specs, plans, reviews, closure gates, or skill edits. Use when asked to reread with fresh eyes, find obvious bugs, catch mistakes/oversights/omissions, check for embarrassing misses, or do a second independent pass before closure. Use it as the final falsification/check pass for another workflow, not as a substitute for implementation or verification.
| name | interview |
| description | Interview the user deeply about a plan, probing technical implementation, UI/UX, risks, tradeoffs, and missing decisions before writing or refining a spec. Use when the user says "interview me" or asks to be questioned about a plan. |
Read the plan file and interview me using the AskUserQuestion tool.
Ask about: technical implementation, UI/UX, concerns, tradeoffs.
Make sure the questions are not obvious. Be very in-depth and continue until it's complete and write the spec.
