adversarial-prompting

应用严格的对抗性分析来生成、批评、修复和巩固任何问题（技术或非技术）的解决方案。当面临需要彻底分析、多种解决方法以及在实施之前验证建议修复的复杂问题时使用。

# 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
2. **Summary of Options**: Ranked list of viable approaches (Phase 6)
3. **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

---

## 中文说明

# 对抗式提示（Adversarial Prompting）

此技能将结构化的对抗式方法论应用于问题求解：生成多个解决方案，严格批判每个方案的弱点，制定修复措施，验证这些修复，并整合为分级的建议。该方法在确定解决方案之前，强制对失败模式、边界情况和意外后果进行深入分析。

## 何时使用此技能

在以下情况使用此技能：
- 面临需要彻底分析的复杂技术问题（架构决策、调试、性能优化）
- 解决具有多种可行方法的战略或业务问题
- 需要在实施之前识别拟议解决方案的弱点
- 需要针对根本原因（而非症状）的经过验证的修复
- 处理必须理解失败模式的高风险决策
- 寻求全程展示详细推理的全面分析

不要在以下情况使用此技能：
- 具有明显解决方案的简单、直接的问题
- 需要立即采取行动、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

## 如何使用此技能

### 主工作流

被调用时，对用户的问题应用以下 7 阶段流程：

#### 阶段 1：解决方案生成
生成 3-7 个不同的解决方法。对每个方案：
- 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：对抗式批判
对每个方案，严格识别关键弱点。在检查以下方面时展示思考过程：
- 边界情况和失败模式
- 安全漏洞或风险
- 性能瓶颈
- 可扩展性限制
- 可能崩溃的隐藏假设
- 资源约束（时间、金钱、人力）
- 意外后果
- 灾难性失败场景

在识别可能出错的地方时要富有创造力且彻底。

#### 阶段 3：修复制定
对每个识别出的弱点：
- 提出具体的修复或缓解策略
- 解释该修复为何能解决根本原因
- 描述该修复如何与原始解决方案集成

#### 阶段 4：验证检查
审查每个修复，以确认它确实解决了弱点：
- 确认修复解决了根本原因
- 检查修复引入的新问题
- 标记任何遗留的隐患或权衡

#### 阶段 5：整合
将所有解决方案和经过验证的修复综合为完整的方法：
- 整合来自不同方案的互补元素
- 消除冗余
- 展示如何组合各方案以形成更强的方法
- 呈现最终的可行选项集合

#### 阶段 6：选项汇总
按优先顺序呈现所有可行选项，依据以下方面排名：
- **可行性**：在可用资源下是否真的能实施？
- **影响力**：它在多大程度上解决了问题？
- **风险等级**：还有什么可能出错？
- **资源需求**：在时间、金钱和精力上的成本

对每个选项，提供一段强调关键权衡的摘要。

#### 阶段 7：最终建议
陈述首选建议（单一选项或组合）：
- 清晰说明为何这是最佳路径
- 实施的具体后续步骤
- 需跟踪的关键成功指标
- 需监控问题的早期预警信号

### 输出格式

以三个部分呈现完整分析：

1. **详细演练**：展示所有阶段（1-5）并完整呈现推理过程
2. **选项汇总**：可行方法的分级列表（阶段 6）
3. **最终建议**：首选方案及实施指导（阶段 7）

在呈现分析后，使用 `scripts/export_analysis.py` 自动将完整输出导出到一个 markdown 文件。

## 实施说明

- 在整个过程中展示推理以保持透明
- 在对抗式批判中力求彻底——揭示令人不适的真相
- 严格验证修复，以避免制造新问题
- 整合应创造更强的解决方案，而不仅仅是罗列选项
- 最终建议应可执行并附有清晰的后续步骤
- 将结果导出为 markdown，以便日后参考和分享