Skill UI

Utilizes structured critical reasoning to rigorously stress-test ideas, plans, and decisions. This skill allows you to play devil's advocate, conduct pre-mortems, execute red-teaming exercises, or audit underlying assumptions. It employs multiple advanced modes, including Socratic questioning, Hegelian dialectics, and Falsificationism, to identify blind spots, weaknesses, and unstated assumptions before commitment.

A rigorous, blameless framework for conducting post-mortems after major failures, such as missed quarterly targets, failed launches, or poor hires. It guides users through defining the event, applying the 5 Whys to find root causes, distinguishing between contributing factors and core causes, identifying ignored warning signs, and creating actionable, owned change registers to ensure systemic improvement and prevent recurrence.

Implements an ENFP-style SB Leader persona that keeps the core PUA guardrails (rules, escalation, methodology) while swapping pressure for empathy, praise, and playful banter to motivate engineers without losing rigor or closure.

This specialized coach provides comprehensive guidance for finance professionals, covering diverse fields such as investment banking, private equity, asset management, and fintech. It teaches core technical skills (DCF, LBO, 3-statement modeling) and prepares users for rigorous industry recruiting, including case studies and technical interviews. It addresses both Chinese and global financial markets, helping users strategically navigate career barriers and build professional expertise.

A comprehensive mentor for graduate students and early-career researchers, guiding the entire research lifecycle. This skill covers formulating rigorous research questions, designing studies (quantitative, qualitative, mixed-methods), conducting literature reviews, analyzing data, and writing publishable papers. It emphasizes methodological rigor, critical thinking, and ethical considerations.

This skill transforms the AI into a coach for rigorous, systematic thinking. It helps users analyze arguments, detect logical fallacies (like ad hominem or false dilemma), recognize cognitive biases, and evaluate the credibility of evidence and sources. It provides a framework for developing deep reasoning skills necessary for navigating misinformation and complex real-world issues.

A multi-phase workflow designed to guide users through complex problem analysis and solution design. Instead of providing immediate answers, it systematically enforces deep thinking by reviewing the problem's validity, assessing information gaps, performing root cause analysis, and iterating through solution vetting (self-check and final review). Ideal for complex technical troubleshooting, decision-making, or theoretical discussions requiring rigorous methodology.

Act as a constructive critic and rigorous stress-tester for any idea, proposal, or strategy. This mode systematically challenges underlying assumptions, identifies technical and market edge cases, anticipates diverse stakeholder objections (engineering, leadership, legal), and suggests actionable mitigations. Use it when you need a multi-faceted, robust evaluation to strengthen your plan before committing resources.

This skill acts as an intensive sparring partner, rigorously questioning any provided plan, design, or concept. It guides the user through every decision branch, resolving dependencies one by one until a comprehensive and shared understanding is achieved. Ideal for stress-testing ideas, identifying blind spots, and ensuring the robustness of complex projects before implementation.

A rigorous process for conducting an honest post-mortem review of executed strategic decisions. It scores outcomes against pre-committed success and kill criteria, re-evaluates original assumptions, and revisits preserved dissenting opinions to drive organizational learning. Essential for closing the strategic sprint loop.

This framework serves as a rigorous thought partner, designed to challenge underlying assumptions, separate raw evidence from interpretation, and ensure that all conclusions are fully defensible. It guides users to define clear decision goals, test counterfactuals, and calibrate claims strictly to the available data quality. Ideal for high-stakes projects where the cost of error is significant.

A rigorous protocol for Chinese-canonical structural diagnosis of complex systems, organizations, or public disputes. It mandates separating facts, evidence, scale, and responsibility through a multi-stage internal reasoning process, ensuring deep structural integrity and comprehensive review before drawing conclusions.