用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt,粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里,让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt;运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/thiagofernandes1987-create/APEX --skill challenge命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地?可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
Token-aware reasoning workflow with real tools: picks an operating mode to control cost, runs a structured pipeline (decompose → validate → verify → snapshot), and gives Claude Program-of-Thought, RK4/Euler, a code gate, and a safe skill router. Use when: multi-step or high-stakes tasks, real math, precise computation, audits, or the user mentions APEX, PoT, pipeline, or scientific mode.
**v00.33.0**: Ingested from antigravity-awesome-skills community repo
run multiple local CLI agents in parallel (separate tmux sessions)
基于 SOC 职业分类
正在显示 SKILL.md
| name | challenge |
| description | Manage — /em -challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis |
| executor | LLM_BEHAVIOR |
| skill_id | business.c_level_advisor.executive_mentor.challenge |
| status | ADOPTED |
| security | {"level":"standard","pii":false,"approval_required":false} |
| anchors | ["business"] |
| tier | 2 |
| input_schema | [{"name":"code_or_task","type":"string","description":"Code snippet, script, or task description to process","required":true}] |
| output_schema | [{"name":"report","type":"string","description":"Analysis report or summary from challenge"}] |
Command: /em:challenge <plan>
Systematically finds weaknesses in any plan before reality does. Not to kill the plan — to make it survive contact with reality.
Most plans fail for predictable reasons. Not bad luck — bad assumptions. Overestimated demand. Underestimated complexity. Dependencies nobody questioned. Timing that made sense in a spreadsheet but not in the real world.
The pre-mortem technique: imagine it's 12 months from now and this plan failed spectacularly. Now work backwards. Why?
That's not pessimism. It's how you build something that doesn't collapse.
Before you can test a plan, you need to surface everything it assumes to be true.
For each section of the plan, ask:
Common assumption categories:
For every assumption extracted, rate it on two dimensions:
Confidence level (how sure are you this is true):
Impact if wrong (what happens if this assumption fails):
The matrix of Low/Unknown confidence × Critical/High impact = your highest-risk assumptions.
Vulnerability = Low confidence + High impact
These are not problems to ignore. They're the bets you're making. The question is: are you making them consciously?
Many plans fail not because any single assumption is wrong, but because multiple assumptions have to be right simultaneously.
Map the chain:
For each critical vulnerability: if this assumption turns out to be wrong at month 3, what do you do?
The less reversible, the more rigorously you need to validate before committing.
Challenge Report: [Plan Name]
CORE ASSUMPTIONS (extracted)
1. [Assumption] — Confidence: [H/M/L/?] — Impact if wrong: [Critical/High/Medium/Low]
2. ...
VULNERABILITY MAP
Critical risks (act before proceeding):
• [#N] [Assumption] — WHY it might be wrong — WHAT breaks if it is
High risks (validate before scaling):
• ...
DEPENDENCY CHAIN
[Assumption A] → depends on → [Assumption B] → which enables → [Assumption C]
Weakest link: [X] — if this breaks, [Y] and [Z] also fail
REVERSIBILITY ASSESSMENT
• Reversible bets: [list]
• Irreversible commitments: [list — treat with extreme care]
KILL SWITCHES
What would have to be true at [30/60/90 days] to continue vs. kill/pivot?
• Continue if: ...
• Kill/pivot if: ...
HARDENING ACTIONS
1. [Specific validation to do before proceeding]
2. [Alternative approach to consider]
3. [Contingency to build into the plan]
These are the ones people skip:
The output of /em:challenge is not permission to stop. It's a vulnerability map. Now you can make conscious decisions: validate the risky assumptions, hedge the critical ones, or accept the bets you're making knowingly.
Unknown risks are dangerous. Known risks are manageable.
Manage — /em -challenge — Pre-Mortem Plan Analysis
Use this skill when the task requires challenge capabilities.
If this skill fails to produce the expected output: (1) verify input completeness, (2) retry with more specific context, (3) fall back to the parent workflow without this skill.