renolation/english
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
Files
main
english/.opencode/skills/ck-predict/SKILL.md
renolation 10d660cbcb init
2026-04-12 01:06:31 +07:00

4.5 KiB
Raw Permalink Blame History

name, description, argument-hint, metadata
name description argument-hint metadata
ck:predict 5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes. <feature description or change proposal> [--files <glob>]
author attribution license version
claudekit Multi-persona prediction pattern adapted from autoresearch by Udit Goenka (MIT) MIT 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