init

.opencode/skills/ck-predict/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,119 @@
+---
+name: ck:predict
+description: "5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes."
+argument-hint: "<feature description or change proposal> [--files <glob>]"
+metadata:
+  author: claudekit
+  attribution: "Multi-persona prediction pattern adapted from autoresearch by Udit Goenka (MIT)"
+  license: MIT
+  version: "1.0.0"
+---
+
+# ck:predict — Multi-Persona Pre-Analysis
+
+Five expert personas independently analyze a proposed change, then debate conflicts to produce a consensus verdict before a single line of code is written.
+
+## When to Use
+
+- Before implementing a major or high-risk feature
+- Before a significant refactor or architecture change
+- Evaluating competing technical approaches
+- Stress-testing assumptions in a proposed design
+
+## When NOT to Use
+
+- Trivial or low-risk changes (use `ck:debug` for bugs, `ck:plan` for already-decided tasks)
+- Already-approved work with no open design questions
+- Pure dependency upgrades with no API changes
+
+---
+
+## The 5 Personas
+
+| Persona | Focus | Core Questions |
+|---------|-------|----------------|
+| **Architect** | System design, scalability, coupling | Does this fit the architecture? Will it scale? What new coupling does it introduce? |
+| **Security** | Attack surface, data protection, auth | What can be abused? Where is data exposed? Are auth boundaries respected? |
+| **Performance** | Latency, memory, queries, bundle size | What is the latency impact? N+1 queries? Memory leaks? Bundle bloat? |
+| **UX** | User experience, accessibility, error states | Is this intuitive? What does the error state look like? Accessible on mobile? |
+| **Devil's Advocate** | Hidden assumptions, simpler alternatives | Why not do nothing? What is the simplest alternative? Which assumption could be wrong? |
+
+---
+
+## Debate Protocol
+
+1. **Read** the proposed change/feature description from the argument
+2. **Read relevant code** if file paths are provided (grep for affected areas)
+3. **Each persona analyzes independently** — do not let personas influence each other during this phase
+4. **Identify agreements** — points where all (or 4+) personas align
+5. **Identify conflicts** — points where personas meaningfully disagree
+6. **Weigh tradeoffs** — for each conflict, evaluate which concern has higher impact
+7. **Produce verdict** — GO / CAUTION / STOP with actionable recommendations
+
+---
+
+## Output Format
+
+```
+## Prediction Report: [proposal title]
+
+## Verdict: GO | CAUTION | STOP
+
+### Agreements (all personas align)
+- [Point 1 — what they all agree on]
+- [Point 2]
+
+### Conflicts & Resolutions
+
+| Topic | Architect | Security | Performance | UX | Devil's Advocate | Resolution |
+|-------|-----------|----------|-------------|-----|-----------------|------------|
+| [Issue] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [View] | [Recommendation] |
+
+### Risk Summary
+
+| Risk | Severity | Mitigation |
+|------|----------|------------|
+| [Risk description] | Critical/High/Medium/Low | [Concrete action] |
+
+### Recommendations
+1. [Action item — rationale]
+2. [Action item — rationale]
+3. [Action item — rationale]
+```
+
+---
+
+## Verdict Levels
+
+| Verdict | Meaning |
+|---------|---------|
+| **GO** | All personas aligned, no critical risks, proceed with confidence |
+| **CAUTION** | Concerns exist but are manageable — mitigations identified, proceed carefully |
+| **STOP** | Critical unresolved issue found — needs redesign or more information before proceeding |
+
+### STOP Triggers (any one is sufficient)
+- Security persona identifies auth bypass or data exposure with no viable mitigation
+- Architect identifies fundamental design incompatibility requiring significant rework
+- Performance persona identifies unacceptable latency or query explosion with no workaround
+- Devil's Advocate exposes a false assumption that invalidates the entire approach
+
+---
+
+## Integration with Other Skills
+
+| Workflow Step | Skill | How |
+|---------------|-------|-----|
+| Deepen risk scenarios | `ck:scenario` | Feed Risk Summary rows as feature description |
+| Create implementation plan | `ck:plan` | Attach Recommendations as constraints to planner |
+| High-risk feature implementation | `ck:cook` | Reference CAUTION/STOP items as acceptance gates |
+
+---
+
+## Example Invocations
+
+```
+/ck:predict "Add WebSocket support for real-time notifications"
+/ck:predict "Migrate authentication from JWT to session cookies"
+/ck:predict "Add multi-tenancy to the database layer"
+/ck:predict "Replace REST API with GraphQL" --files src/api/**/*.ts
+```