Adversarial Prompting
This skill applies a structured adversarial methodology to problem-solving by generating multiple solutions, rigorously critiquing each for weaknesses, developing fixes, validating those fixes, and consolidating into ranked recommendations. The approach forces deep analysis of failure modes, edge cases, and unintended consequences before committing to a solution.
When to Use This Skill
Use this skill when:
- - Facing complex technical problems requiring thorough analysis (architecture decisions, debugging, performance optimization)
- Solving strategic or business problems with multiple viable approaches
- Needing to identify weaknesses in proposed solutions before implementation
- Requiring validated fixes that address root causes, not symptoms
- Working on high-stakes decisions where failure modes must be understood
- Seeking comprehensive analysis with detailed reasoning visible throughout
Do not use this skill for:
- - Simple, straightforward problems with obvious solutions
- Time-sensitive decisions requiring immediate action without analysis
- Problems where exploration and iteration are more valuable than upfront analysis
How to Use This Skill
Primary Workflow
When invoked, apply the following 7-phase process to the user's problem:
Phase 1: Solution Generation
Generate 3-7 distinct solution approaches. For each solution:
- - Explain the reasoning behind the approach
- Describe the core strategy
- Outline the key steps or components
Phase 2: Adversarial Critique
For each solution, rigorously identify critical weaknesses. Show thinking while examining:
- - Edge cases and failure modes
- Security vulnerabilities or risks
- Performance bottlenecks
- Scalability limitations
- Hidden assumptions that could break
- Resource constraints (time, money, people)
- Unintended consequences
- Catastrophic failure scenarios
Be creative and thorough in identifying what could go wrong.
Phase 3: Fix Development
For each identified weakness:
- - Propose a specific fix or mitigation strategy
- Explain why this fix addresses the root cause
- Describe how the fix integrates with the original solution
Phase 4: Validation Check
Review each fix to verify it actually solves the weakness:
- - Confirm the fix addresses the root cause
- Check for new problems introduced by the fix
- Flag any remaining concerns or trade-offs
Phase 5: Consolidation
Synthesize all solutions and validated fixes into comprehensive approaches:
- - Integrate complementary elements from different solutions
- Eliminate redundancies
- Show how solutions can be combined for stronger approaches
- Present the final set of viable options
Phase 6: Summary of Options
Present all viable options in priority order, ranked by:
- - Feasibility: Can this actually be implemented with available resources?
- Impact: How well does this solve the problem?
- Risk Level: What could still go wrong?
- Resource Requirements: Cost in time, money, and effort
For each option, provide a one-paragraph summary highlighting key trade-offs.
Phase 7: Final Recommendation
State the top recommendation (single option or combination):
- - Clear rationale for why this is the best path
- Concrete next steps for implementation
- Key success metrics to track
- Early warning signs to monitor for problems
Output Format
Present the complete analysis in three sections:
- 1. Detailed Walkthrough: Show all phases (1-5) with full reasoning visible
- Summary of Options: Ranked list of viable approaches (Phase 6)
- Final Recommendation: Top choice with implementation guidance (Phase 7)
After presenting the analysis, automatically export the complete output to a markdown file using scripts/export_analysis.py.
Implementation Notes
- - Show reasoning throughout the process for transparency
- Be thorough in adversarial critique—surface uncomfortable truths
- Validate fixes rigorously to avoid creating new problems
- Consolidation should create stronger solutions, not just list options
- Final recommendation should be actionable with clear next steps
- Export results to markdown for future reference and sharing
对抗性提示
该技能通过生成多种解决方案、严格批判每个方案的弱点、制定修复措施、验证修复效果并整合为排序后的建议,将结构化的对抗性方法论应用于问题解决。这种方法迫使你在确定解决方案之前,深入分析故障模式、边缘情况和意外后果。
何时使用该技能
在以下情况下使用该技能:
- - 面对需要全面分析的复杂技术问题(架构决策、调试、性能优化)
- 解决存在多种可行方法的战略或业务问题
- 需要在实施前识别拟议解决方案中的弱点
- 需要经过验证的修复措施,能够解决根本原因而非表面症状
- 处理高风险决策,必须理解故障模式
- 寻求全面分析,且整个过程中可见详细推理过程
请勿在以下情况下使用该技能:
- - 简单直接、有明确解决方案的问题
- 需要立即行动、无需分析的时间敏感型决策
- 探索和迭代比前期分析更有价值的问题
如何使用该技能
主要工作流程
调用时,对用户的问题应用以下7个阶段流程:
阶段1:解决方案生成
生成3-7种不同的解决方案。对每个解决方案:
- - 解释该方法背后的推理
- 描述核心策略
- 概述关键步骤或组成部分
阶段2:对抗性批判
对每个解决方案,严格识别关键弱点。在检查时展示思考过程:
- - 边缘情况和故障模式
- 安全漏洞或风险
- 性能瓶颈
- 可扩展性限制
- 可能导致失败的隐藏假设
- 资源约束(时间、资金、人员)
- 意外后果
- 灾难性故障场景
创造性地、全面地识别可能出现的问题。
阶段3:修复措施制定
针对每个已识别的弱点:
- - 提出具体的修复或缓解策略
- 解释为什么该修复措施能解决根本原因
- 描述修复措施如何与原始解决方案整合
阶段4:验证检查
审查每个修复措施,验证其确实解决了弱点:
- - 确认修复措施解决了根本原因
- 检查修复措施是否引入了新问题
- 标记任何剩余的顾虑或权衡
阶段5:整合
将所有解决方案和经过验证的修复措施综合成全面的方案:
- - 整合不同解决方案中的互补元素
- 消除冗余
- 展示如何组合解决方案以获得更强的方案
- 呈现最终的可行选项集
阶段6:选项总结
按优先级顺序呈现所有可行选项,排序依据:
- - 可行性:能否利用现有资源实际实施?
- 影响:解决问题的效果如何?
- 风险等级:仍可能出现什么问题?
- 资源需求:时间、资金和精力成本
对每个选项,提供一段摘要,突出关键权衡。
阶段7:最终建议
陈述最佳建议(单一选项或组合):
- - 明确说明为什么这是最佳路径
- 具体的实施后续步骤
- 需要跟踪的关键成功指标
- 需要监控问题的早期预警信号
输出格式
将完整分析分为三个部分呈现:
- 1. 详细演练:展示所有阶段(1-5),附带完整的推理过程
- 选项总结:按优先级排序的可行方法列表(阶段6)
- 最终建议:最佳选择及实施指南(阶段7)
呈现分析后,使用scripts/export_analysis.py自动将完整输出导出为markdown文件。
实施说明
- - 在整个过程中展示推理过程,确保透明度
- 对抗性批判要彻底——揭示令人不适的事实
- 严格验证修复措施,避免产生新问题
- 整合应创造更强的解决方案,而非仅列出选项
- 最终建议应具有可操作性,附带明确的后续步骤
- 将结果导出为markdown,便于将来参考和分享