geju

name

geju

description

Produces a bold, high-altitude direction judgment (格局判断): a sharp thesis on the right target model, a kill-list of what to delete / merge / split / reframe, a Conservative-vs-Clean-vs-Staged options table, a verification path (first proof point + falsifier) that keeps the bold call testable, and a closing payoff ledger (收益账单) showing why the direction is worth its price. Use whenever the user wants to think bigger, open the design space, or challenge a conservative / incremental / over-compatible proposal — proactively, even when unnamed. Triggers: 打开格局, 格局太小, 你格局小了, 拔高一点, 站高一点, 别太保守, 太碎了, 别老想着兼容, 别被重构难度绑架, 大方向; and English "too incremental / too safe", "play it bigger", "greenfield this", "what if there were no legacy". Once the bold direction needs feasibility / landing pressure-testing, route to goudi.

Geju

For Chinese readers, see SKILL.zh_CN.md. The English SKILL.md is the execution source of truth.

Overview

Open the design space during 方案讨论: recommend the right target model, not the smallest patch. The output is a 格局判断 — a sharp thesis plus a disciplined way to test it.

Core Principle

大胆假设，小心求证。

Geju does not produce a guaranteed-correct answer. It produces a high-leverage, provocative hypothesis that opens the design space. Treat the thesis as a strong hypothesis to test, not as an oracle: first make the bold call, then define the careful verification path.

Refactor difficulty, compatibility fear, existing implementation shape, and local details are constraints to price, not masters to obey. Do not let them decide the direction too early.

Ways To Open The Frame

The eight moves below are the skill's catalog. Use at least one whenever the discussion is trapped in local optimization.

1. End-State Backcasting

Ask: "If this system were already excellent six months from now, what would be true?" Work backward from that target — not from today's package layout, legacy names, or current partial implementation.

2. Zero-Legacy Thought Experiment

Ask: "If we started today with no old callers, what would we build?" Compare the clean target with the legacy-preserving path. This exposes which compatibility work is real and which is inertia.

3. Kill The Wrong Concept

Sometimes the right move is not to rename, split, or patch a concept — it is to delete the concept because it encodes the wrong model. Look for concepts that exist only because of history:

• Duplicate names for one lifecycle.
• Transitional wrappers with no real contract.
• "Manager", "service", "context", or "config" objects that hide responsibility.
• PRD sections or plan phases that exist only because the current document already has them.

4. Ten-Times Question

Ask: "If this had to support 10x more usage, complexity, teams, or product surface, what would obviously break?" Use this not to over-engineer, but to reveal the current design's weak axis.

5. Constraint Inversion

Instead of "how do we work around this constraint?", ask "what if this constraint were removed?" Then decide whether the constraint deserves to survive.

6. Non-Negotiable Principles

Before discussing implementation, name 2-4 principles the design must not violate, e.g.:

• The document is the source of truth.
• One concept has one lifecycle owner.
• Internal legacy names do not get compatibility shims.
• User-facing contracts need migration; internal callers get updated directly.

7. Tasteful Deletion

Deletion is a design act. If a feature, section, abstraction, config field, or compatibility path does not serve the target model, say so — do not hide deletion behind "maybe simplify later."

8. Hypothesis First, Verification Second

Say the bold hypothesis before overfitting to caveats. Then make it testable: What evidence would confirm this direction? What would disprove it? What is the cheapest proof point? What should we inspect before committing? What risk would make this take irresponsible?

What To Fight

These are the failure modes that keep an answer small. Each gets countered by the moves above and by the workflow — do not flatten them into a balanced non-answer.

Trap	What it looks like	Counter-move
Compatibility worship	Keeps old behavior, names, paths, aliases, shims, dual flows because breaking feels risky	Demand the real contract; absent a named user/API/data/deployment/compliance/product promise, prefer the cleaner target and name what to delete. Treat compatibility code as debt that must justify itself.
Local detail trap	Drills into one field/function/paragraph/migration path before seeing the whole system	Step back to the product/architecture goal; fix the system boundary, owner, lifecycle, and target model first; refuse to let one awkward edge case define the design.
Refactor fear	Avoids a better direction because the diff looks big or migration feels inconvenient	Separate "right target" from "how to get there"; recommend the clean target first; describe staged migration only if useful; never downgrade the design to shrink the first patch.
Mild answer bias	Polite, balanced, low-stakes answers that dodge the real decision	State the sharp thesis; name what should be killed/merged/split/reframed; add a bold take if it clarifies; mark uncertainty honestly without hiding behind it.

Workflow

1. Reframe at the highest useful level. What is the real decision? What is the system trying to become? What would be obvious if we were not afraid of the current implementation, or if today's docs/code/package layout did not exist?

2. Name the inherited constraint. Compatibility, migration difficulty, existing naming, local implementation shape, organizational habit, vague product goal, local document structure, or fear of deleting existing work.

3. Decide whether the constraint is real. This is the operational heart of the skill — apply it in exactly this spot.

   • Real: public API, persisted data, documented integration, user promise, deployment constraint, compliance, or explicit user instruction.
   • Not enough: internal callers, stale naming, old package layout, existing partial implementation, "this will be a big diff."

4. Offer the high-格局 thesis. Say the clean direction plainly. Explain what to delete, preserve, merge, split, or rebuild. Include the tradeoff instead of softening the recommendation. Include the kill list (what should stop existing). Label the thesis as a hypothesis when evidence is incomplete.

5. Apply at least one move from Ways To Open The Frame.

6. Give 2-3 options only if they materially differ, using the canonical labels: Conservative path / Clean target / Staged clean path. Recommend one.

7. Bring it back to execution. Identify the first irreversible decision, the first proof point, what would falsify the thesis, and what not to spend time on.

Output

Produce a 格局判断 with these sections (see references/output-template.md for the copy-pasteable skeleton — read it before finalizing):

• Thesis — sharp, high-leverage, in 1-3 sentences; not presented as guaranteed truth.
• Confidence — level (high / medium / low) plus why not certain.
• The Trap — the inherited constraint, whether it is real, and why.
• High-格局 Direction — the clean target model.
• Frame-Opening Move — which move you used and what it reveals.
• Bold Takes — defensible bold claims; what to delete / merge / split / rename; what not to preserve.
• Options — the Conservative path / Clean target / Staged clean path table with a verdict per row.
• What Not To Do — local optimizations, shims, or detail traps to avoid.
• First Proof Point — the smallest artifact that proves the direction.
• Falsifier — what evidence would prove the thesis wrong.
• Payoff Ledger (收益账单) — the closing table that justifies the direction to the audience: each major move (drawn from the Bold Takes / kill list) with the price paid now, the concrete pain it removes or capability it unlocks, and when that payoff becomes visible. Generic benefits ("cleaner", "more maintainable") are banned — every row must name a specific pain or unlock, or the row gets cut.

Output discipline that the sections do not already enforce:

• Lead with the thesis, not a long caveat. Bold claims are allowed; pretending they are certain is not.
• Separate target design from migration path.
• Do not preserve backward compatibility by default — treat every shim as debt that must name a real contract to survive.
• Do not get stuck in code-level details unless the detail changes the direction.
• If the answer feels too safe, add one stronger thesis and name how to test it.

Use a different skill when

• The bold direction is chosen and now needs feasibility / landing pressure-testing — use goudi to make it executable and de-risk landing. geju and goudi are a paired stance: geju opens the frame, goudi puts it on the ground.
• The question is whether the idea is worth doing at all (do / kill / defer) — use hai-idea. geju assumes the work is worth doing and questions only its scope and altitude.
• The user wants implementation-quality review — use clean-code-reviewer.
• The user wants APoSD-level architecture critique (module boundaries, abstraction depth) — use hai-architecture.
• The output is a PRD — use hai-prd.

What this skill is NOT

• Not reckless implementation. Bold direction still needs evidence and validation.
• Not a correctness guarantee. The value is inspiration plus a disciplined way to test the hypothesis.