120 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
120 lines
4.5 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
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
|
|
```
|