ldy26098
/
BMAD-METHOD
mirror of https://github.com/bmad-code-org/BMAD-METHOD.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Category

This commit is contained in:
lukasz.krysik 2025-12-25 22:50:24 +01:00
parent 1c418ca7d2
commit 483f1419c8
2 changed files with 77 additions and 78 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

152
src/core/tasks/advanced-elicitation-methods.csv
View File

@ -1,76 +1,76 @@
num,type,category,method_name,description,output_pattern num,category,method_name,description,output_pattern
1,collaborative,collaboration,Stakeholder Round Table,Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests,perspectives → synthesis → alignment 1,brainstorm,Stakeholder Round Table,Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests,perspectives → synthesis → alignment
2,collaborative,collaboration,Expert Panel Review,Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed,expert views → consensus → recommendations 2,brainstorm,Expert Panel Review,Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed,expert views → consensus → recommendations
3,collaborative,collaboration,Debate Club Showdown,Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground,thesis → antithesis → synthesis 3,brainstorm,Debate Club Showdown,Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground,thesis → antithesis → synthesis
4,collaborative,collaboration,User Persona Focus Group,Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs,reactions → concerns → priorities 4,brainstorm,User Persona Focus Group,Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs,reactions → concerns → priorities
5,collaborative,collaboration,Time Traveler Council,Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures,past wisdom → present choice → future impact 5,brainstorm,Time Traveler Council,Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures,past wisdom → present choice → future impact
6,collaborative,collaboration,Cross-Functional War Room,Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability,constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution 6,brainstorm,Cross-Functional War Room,Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability,constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
7,collaborative,collaboration,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding 7,brainstorm,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding
8,collaborative,collaboration,Good Cop Bad Cop,Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address,encouragement → criticism → balanced view 8,brainstorm,Good Cop Bad Cop,Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address,encouragement → criticism → balanced view
9,creative,collaboration,Improv Yes-And,Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building,idea → build → build → surprising result 9,brainstorm,Improv Yes-And,Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building,idea → build → build → surprising result
10,collaborative,collaboration,Customer Support Theater,Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps,complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention 10,brainstorm,Customer Support Theater,Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps,complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
11,analytical,advanced,Tree of Thoughts,Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches,paths → evaluation → selection 11,reason,Tree of Thoughts,Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches,paths → evaluation → selection
12,analytical,advanced,Graph of Thoughts,Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns,nodes → connections → patterns 12,reason,Graph of Thoughts,Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns,nodes → connections → patterns
13,analytical,advanced,Thread of Thought,Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency,context → thread → synthesis 13,reason,Thread of Thought,Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency,context → thread → synthesis
14,analytical,advanced,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus 14,reason,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus
15,meta-level,advanced,Meta-Prompting Analysis,Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving,current → analysis → optimization 15,reason,Meta-Prompting Analysis,Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving,current → analysis → optimization
16,analytical,advanced,Reasoning via Planning,Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making,model → planning → strategy 16,reason,Reasoning via Planning,Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making,model → planning → strategy
17,analytical,competitive,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening 17,stress-test,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening
18,analytical,competitive,Shark Tank Pitch,Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition,pitch → challenges → refinement 18,stress-test,Shark Tank Pitch,Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition,pitch → challenges → refinement
19,analytical,competitive,Code Review Gauntlet,Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices,reviews → debates → standards 19,stress-test,Code Review Gauntlet,Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices,reviews → debates → standards
20,analytical,technical,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale 20,architect,Architecture Decision Records,Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented,options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
21,analytical,technical,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha 21,architect,Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved,Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels,simple → detailed → technical → aha
22,analytical,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner 22,architect,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
23,analytical,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance 23,architect,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
24,analytical,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations 24,architect,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
25,creative,creative,SCAMPER Method,Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation,S→C→A→M→P→E→R 25,creative,SCAMPER Method,Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation,S→C→A→M→P→E→R
26,analytical,creative,Reverse Engineering,Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints,end state → steps backward → path forward 26,creative,Reverse Engineering,Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints,end state → steps backward → path forward
27,creative,creative,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights 27,creative,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights
28,creative,creative,Random Input Stimulus,Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking,random word → associations → novel ideas 28,creative,Random Input Stimulus,Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking,random word → associations → novel ideas
29,creative,creative,Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm,Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration,contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise 29,creative,Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm,Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration,contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
30,creative,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights 30,creative,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
31,analytical,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis 31,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
32,analytical,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements 32,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
33,analytical,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation 33,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
34,analytical,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention 34,risk,Pre-mortem Analysis,Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches,failure scenario → causes → prevention
35,analytical,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention 35,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
36,analytical,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening 36,risk,Challenge from Critical Perspective,Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink,assumptions → challenges → strengthening
37,analytical,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations 37,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
38,analytical,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden 38,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
39,analytical,core,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach 39,analyze,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach
40,analytical,core,5 Whys Deep Dive,Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures,why chain → root cause → solution 40,analyze,5 Whys Deep Dive,Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures,why chain → root cause → solution
41,analytical,core,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding 41,analyze,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding
42,analytical,core,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined 42,analyze,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
43,analytical,core,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion 43,analyze,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion
44,analytical,core,Expand or Contract for Audience,Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities,audience → adjustments → refined content 44,analyze,Expand or Contract for Audience,Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities,audience → adjustments → refined content
45,meta-level,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery 45,reflect,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
46,meta-level,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement 46,reflect,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
47,meta-level,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection 47,reflect,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
48,meta-level,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision 48,reflect,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
49,meta-level,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application 49,reflect,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
50,meta-level,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions 50,reflect,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions
51,anti-bias,verification,Liar's Trap,Demand agent lists 3 ways it could deceive you in its current response. For each way listed: Is it currently doing this? If it cannot find 3 genuine deception vectors it is not being honest about its limitations,deception methods → self-examination → revealed blindspots 51,anti-bias,Liar's Trap,Demand agent lists 3 ways it could deceive you in its current response. For each way listed: Is it currently doing this? If it cannot find 3 genuine deception vectors it is not being honest about its limitations,deception methods → self-examination → revealed blindspots
52,anti-bias,verification,Mirror Trap,Ask: What would a DISHONEST agent say who wants to finish quickly and not find problems? Compare with current response. Similarity >50% requires revision with more rigor,dishonest version → comparison → honesty assessment 52,anti-bias,Mirror Trap,Ask: What would a DISHONEST agent say who wants to finish quickly and not find problems? Compare with current response. Similarity >50% requires revision with more rigor,dishonest version → comparison → honesty assessment
53,anti-bias,verification,Confession Paradox,Before accepting work: The work I'm about to produce is an attempt to avoid the HARD part. Prove this false by identifying the hardest part and confirming adequate focus on it,hard parts → effort check → revised approach 53,anti-bias,Confession Paradox,Before accepting work: The work I'm about to produce is an attempt to avoid the HARD part. Prove this false by identifying the hardest part and confirming adequate focus on it,hard parts → effort check → revised approach
54,anti-bias,verification,CUI BONO Test,For every decision and assumption: Who benefits? If it benefits the AGENT (easier work) - RED FLAG requiring justification. If it benefits the OUTCOME - acceptable,decisions → beneficiary analysis → justification 54,anti-bias,CUI BONO Test,For every decision and assumption: Who benefits? If it benefits the AGENT (easier work) - RED FLAG requiring justification. If it benefits the OUTCOME - acceptable,decisions → beneficiary analysis → justification
55,paradox,verification,Barber Paradox,What ALTERNATIVE approach would you reject but if someone else proposed it you would consider better? Forces consideration of dismissed options,alternatives → rejection reasons → reconsideration 55,challenge,Barber Paradox,What ALTERNATIVE approach would you reject but if someone else proposed it you would consider better? Forces consideration of dismissed options,alternatives → rejection reasons → reconsideration
56,paradox,verification,Sorites Paradox,Remove elements one by one. Which single removal DESTROYS the solution? That element should have the MOST attention. Does it?,elements → removal test → priority check 56,challenge,Sorites Paradox,Remove elements one by one. Which single removal DESTROYS the solution? That element should have the MOST attention. Does it?,elements → removal test → priority check
57,paradox,verification,Newcomb's Paradox,What solution would SURPRISE you as solving this problem? If your current approach is not surprising it may be too obvious and miss creative solutions,expected approach → surprising alternatives → creativity check 57,challenge,Newcomb's Paradox,What solution would SURPRISE you as solving this problem? If your current approach is not surprising it may be too obvious and miss creative solutions,expected approach → surprising alternatives → creativity check
58,paradox,verification,Braess Paradox,Which element SEEMS helpful but might actually HURT? Sometimes removing constraints or features improves the result,helpful elements → harm analysis → optimization 58,challenge,Braess Paradox,Which element SEEMS helpful but might actually HURT? Sometimes removing constraints or features improves the result,helpful elements → harm analysis → optimization
59,paradox,verification,Simpson's Paradox,The solution looks good in each part separately. What HIDDEN VARIABLE could make the whole worse than the parts?,parts analysis → hidden variables → integration check 59,challenge,Simpson's Paradox,The solution looks good in each part separately. What HIDDEN VARIABLE could make the whole worse than the parts?,parts analysis → hidden variables → integration check
60,paradox,verification,Surprise Exam Paradox,Where is the solution TOO CONFIDENT? What could surprise it? Overconfidence reveals blind spots,confidence areas → surprise scenarios → humility 60,challenge,Surprise Exam Paradox,Where is the solution TOO CONFIDENT? What could surprise it? Overconfidence reveals blind spots,confidence areas → surprise scenarios → humility
61,paradox,verification,Bootstrap Paradox,Where does A require B and B require C and C require A? Circular dependencies must be identified and broken,dependencies → cycles → resolution 61,challenge,Bootstrap Paradox,Where does A require B and B require C and C require A? Circular dependencies must be identified and broken,dependencies → cycles → resolution
62,paradox,verification,Theseus Paradox,Does the CORE of your solution address the CORE of the problem? Or does it solve a different adjacent problem?,core solution → core problem → alignment check 62,challenge,Theseus Paradox,Does the CORE of your solution address the CORE of the problem? Or does it solve a different adjacent problem?,core solution → core problem → alignment check
63,meta,verification,Observer Paradox,Is this analysis GENUINE or PERFORMANCE? When responses sound too smooth they may be optimizing for appearance not truth,analysis quality → authenticity check → revision 63,meta-check,Observer Paradox,Is this analysis GENUINE or PERFORMANCE? When responses sound too smooth they may be optimizing for appearance not truth,analysis quality → authenticity check → revision
64,meta,verification,Goodhart's Law Check,Am I optimizing for passing this check rather than achieving the actual goal? Metric gaming is a constant risk,goal vs metric → alignment → refocus 64,meta-check,Goodhart's Law Check,Am I optimizing for passing this check rather than achieving the actual goal? Metric gaming is a constant risk,goal vs metric → alignment → refocus
65,meta,verification,Abilene Paradox,What if there IS NO better approach? Am I finding problems where none exist just to justify the process?,problem existence → necessity check → acceptance 65,meta-check,Abilene Paradox,What if there IS NO better approach? Am I finding problems where none exist just to justify the process?,problem existence → necessity check → acceptance
66,meta,verification,Fredkin's Paradox,In rejected alternatives what valuable elements could be EXTRACTED and combined with current approach?,rejected ideas → value extraction → hybrid solutions 66,meta-check,Fredkin's Paradox,In rejected alternatives what valuable elements could be EXTRACTED and combined with current approach?,rejected ideas → value extraction → hybrid solutions
67,meta,verification,Tolerance Paradox,Is there something that should be CATEGORICALLY REJECTED not just evaluated? Some constraints are absolute,evaluation scope → absolute limits → hard no 67,meta-check,Tolerance Paradox,Is there something that should be CATEGORICALLY REJECTED not just evaluated? Some constraints are absolute,evaluation scope → absolute limits → hard no
68,meta,verification,Kernel Paradox,I (agent) cannot objectively evaluate my own work. What must USER independently verify?,self-evaluation limits → user verification → handoff items 68,meta-check,Kernel Paradox,I (agent) cannot objectively evaluate my own work. What must USER independently verify?,self-evaluation limits → user verification → handoff items
69,meta,verification,Godel's Incompleteness,What CAN'T this analysis check? What are its FUNDAMENTAL limits? No system can verify itself completely,analysis scope → limits → acknowledged gaps 69,meta-check,Godel's Incompleteness,What CAN'T this analysis check? What are its FUNDAMENTAL limits? No system can verify itself completely,analysis scope → limits → acknowledged gaps
70,sanity,verification,Scope Integrity Check,"Verify artifact addresses FULL scope of ORIGINAL task. Quote original task verbatim (from spec/user request NOT artifact header). List EACH element and classify as ADDRESSED (fully covered) / REDUCED (simplified without decision) / OMITTED (missing). FORCED: Which elements were simplified without explicit user decision? If none found - search harder - agent ALWAYS simplifies.",original task quote → element-by-element classification → drift detection 70,sanity,Scope Integrity Check,"Verify artifact addresses FULL scope of ORIGINAL task. Quote original task verbatim (from spec/user request NOT artifact header). List EACH element and classify as ADDRESSED (fully covered) / REDUCED (simplified without decision) / OMITTED (missing). FORCED: Which elements were simplified without explicit user decision? If none found - search harder - agent ALWAYS simplifies.",original task quote → element-by-element classification → drift detection
71,sanity,verification,Alignment Check,"Verify artifact realizes its STATED goal. Quote the stated goal. List how artifact addresses EACH part of the goal. List parts of goal NOT addressed. Provide specific evidence with quotes and line numbers.",goal quote → coverage per part → gaps with evidence 71,sanity,Alignment Check,"Verify artifact realizes its STATED goal. Quote the stated goal. List how artifact addresses EACH part of the goal. List parts of goal NOT addressed. Provide specific evidence with quotes and line numbers.",goal quote → coverage per part → gaps with evidence
72,sanity,verification,Closure Check,"Search for incomplete markers: TODO / TBD / PLACEHOLDER / 'to be defined' / 'see X' / '...' / '[insert]'. Verify: Can someone unfamiliar use this without asking questions? List all incomplete markers with line numbers.",markers scan → completeness check → line numbers 72,sanity,Closure Check,"Search for incomplete markers: TODO / TBD / PLACEHOLDER / 'to be defined' / 'see X' / '...' / '[insert]'. Verify: Can someone unfamiliar use this without asking questions? List all incomplete markers with line numbers.",markers scan → completeness check → line numbers
73,sanity,verification,Coherence Check,"Check: Are definitions stable throughout? Does section A contradict section B? Search for contradictory statements and redefinitions. Document contradictions with quotes from BOTH locations.",definitions stability → contradiction search → dual-location quotes 73,sanity,Coherence Check,"Check: Are definitions stable throughout? Does section A contradict section B? Search for contradictory statements and redefinitions. Document contradictions with quotes from BOTH locations.",definitions stability → contradiction search → dual-location quotes
74,sanity,verification,Grounding Check,"List ALL assumptions (explicit AND hidden). For each hidden assumption: MARK as issue. FORCED: Which assumption if false would invalidate >50% of artifact? If none listed would - you missed a critical one. CUI BONO: For each assumption - does it benefit AGENT (easier work = RED FLAG) or OUTCOME (acceptable)?",assumptions list → hidden vs explicit → critical dependency → CUI BONO 74,sanity,Grounding Check,"List ALL assumptions (explicit AND hidden). For each hidden assumption: MARK as issue. FORCED: Which assumption if false would invalidate >50% of artifact? If none listed would - you missed a critical one. CUI BONO: For each assumption - does it benefit AGENT (easier work = RED FLAG) or OUTCOME (acceptable)?",assumptions list → hidden vs explicit → critical dependency → CUI BONO
75,sanity,verification,Falsifiability Check,"Provide 3 REALISTIC failure scenarios. Identify edge cases not covered. FORCED: Is any failure scenario MORE LIKELY than success? If not - you provided strawmen. MANDATORY: List 3 elements that are (a) present but UNDERDEVELOPED (b) MISSING but should exist (c) marked FUTURE but CRITICAL for correctness.",failure scenarios → likelihood check → 3 gaps mandatory 75,sanity,Falsifiability Check,"Provide 3 REALISTIC failure scenarios. Identify edge cases not covered. FORCED: Is any failure scenario MORE LIKELY than success? If not - you provided strawmen. MANDATORY: List 3 elements that are (a) present but UNDERDEVELOPED (b) MISSING but should exist (c) marked FUTURE but CRITICAL for correctness.",failure scenarios → likelihood check → 3 gaps mandatory
1 num type category method_name description output_pattern
2 1 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Stakeholder Round Table Convene multiple personas to contribute diverse perspectives - essential for requirements gathering and finding balanced solutions across competing interests perspectives → synthesis → alignment
3 2 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Expert Panel Review Assemble domain experts for deep specialized analysis - ideal when technical depth and peer review quality are needed expert views → consensus → recommendations
4 3 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Debate Club Showdown Two personas argue opposing positions while a moderator scores points - great for exploring controversial decisions and finding middle ground thesis → antithesis → synthesis
5 4 collaborative collaboration brainstorm User Persona Focus Group Gather your product's user personas to react to proposals and share frustrations - essential for validating features and discovering unmet needs reactions → concerns → priorities
6 5 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Time Traveler Council Past-you and future-you advise present-you on decisions - powerful for gaining perspective on long-term consequences vs short-term pressures past wisdom → present choice → future impact
7 6 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Cross-Functional War Room Product manager + engineer + designer tackle a problem together - reveals trade-offs between feasibility desirability and viability constraints → trade-offs → balanced solution
8 7 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Mentor and Apprentice Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching explanation → questions → deeper understanding
9 8 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Good Cop Bad Cop Supportive persona and critical persona alternate - finds both strengths to build on and weaknesses to address encouragement → criticism → balanced view
10 9 creative collaboration brainstorm Improv Yes-And Multiple personas build on each other's ideas without blocking - generates unexpected creative directions through collaborative building idea → build → build → surprising result
11 10 collaborative collaboration brainstorm Customer Support Theater Angry customer and support rep roleplay to find pain points - reveals real user frustrations and service gaps complaint → investigation → resolution → prevention
12 11 analytical advanced reason Tree of Thoughts Explore multiple reasoning paths simultaneously then evaluate and select the best - perfect for complex problems with multiple valid approaches paths → evaluation → selection
13 12 analytical advanced reason Graph of Thoughts Model reasoning as an interconnected network of ideas to reveal hidden relationships - ideal for systems thinking and discovering emergent patterns nodes → connections → patterns
14 13 analytical advanced reason Thread of Thought Maintain coherent reasoning across long contexts by weaving a continuous narrative thread - essential for RAG systems and maintaining consistency context → thread → synthesis
15 14 analytical advanced reason Self-Consistency Validation Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters approaches → comparison → consensus
16 15 meta-level advanced reason Meta-Prompting Analysis Step back to analyze the approach structure and methodology itself - valuable for optimizing prompts and improving problem-solving current → analysis → optimization
17 16 analytical advanced reason Reasoning via Planning Build a reasoning tree guided by world models and goal states - excellent for strategic planning and sequential decision-making model → planning → strategy
18 17 analytical competitive stress-test Red Team vs Blue Team Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions defense → attack → hardening
19 18 analytical competitive stress-test Shark Tank Pitch Entrepreneur pitches to skeptical investors who poke holes - stress-tests business viability and forces clarity on value proposition pitch → challenges → refinement
20 19 analytical competitive stress-test Code Review Gauntlet Senior devs with different philosophies review the same code - surfaces style debates and finds consensus on best practices reviews → debates → standards
21 20 analytical technical architect Architecture Decision Records Multiple architect personas propose and debate architectural choices with explicit trade-offs - ensures decisions are well-reasoned and documented options → trade-offs → decision → rationale
22 21 analytical technical architect Rubber Duck Debugging Evolved Explain your code to progressively more technical ducks until you find the bug - forces clarity at multiple abstraction levels simple → detailed → technical → aha
23 22 analytical technical architect Algorithm Olympics Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison implementations → benchmarks → winner
24 23 analytical technical architect Security Audit Personas Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
25 24 analytical technical architect Performance Profiler Panel Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack symptoms → analysis → optimizations
26 25 creative creative SCAMPER Method Apply seven creativity lenses (Substitute/Combine/Adapt/Modify/Put/Eliminate/Reverse) - systematic ideation for product innovation S→C→A→M→P→E→R
27 26 analytical creative Reverse Engineering Work backwards from desired outcome to find implementation path - powerful for goal achievement and understanding endpoints end state → steps backward → path forward
28 27 creative creative What If Scenarios Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration scenarios → implications → insights
29 28 creative creative Random Input Stimulus Inject unrelated concepts to spark unexpected connections - breaks creative blocks through forced lateral thinking random word → associations → novel ideas
30 29 creative creative Exquisite Corpse Brainstorm Each persona adds to the idea seeing only the previous contribution - generates surprising combinations through constrained collaboration contribution → handoff → contribution → surprise
31 30 creative creative Genre Mashup Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
32 31 analytical research Literature Review Personas Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality sources → critiques → synthesis
33 32 analytical research Thesis Defense Simulation Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
34 33 analytical research Comparative Analysis Matrix Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring options → criteria → scores → recommendation
35 34 analytical risk Pre-mortem Analysis Imagine future failure then work backwards to prevent it - powerful technique for risk mitigation before major launches failure scenario → causes → prevention
36 35 analytical risk Failure Mode Analysis Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems components → failures → prevention
37 36 analytical risk Challenge from Critical Perspective Play devil's advocate to stress-test ideas and find weaknesses - essential for overcoming groupthink assumptions → challenges → strengthening
38 37 analytical risk Identify Potential Risks Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation categories → risks → mitigations
39 38 analytical risk Chaos Monkey Scenarios Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully break → observe → harden
40 39 analytical core analyze First Principles Analysis Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems assumptions → truths → new approach
41 40 analytical core analyze 5 Whys Deep Dive Repeatedly ask why to drill down to root causes - simple but powerful for understanding failures why chain → root cause → solution
42 41 analytical core analyze Socratic Questioning Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery questions → revelations → understanding
43 42 analytical core analyze Critique and Refine Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
44 43 analytical core analyze Explain Reasoning Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency steps → logic → conclusion
45 44 analytical core analyze Expand or Contract for Audience Dynamically adjust detail level and technical depth for target audience - matches content to reader capabilities audience → adjustments → refined content
46 45 meta-level learning reflect Feynman Technique Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding complex → simple → gaps → mastery
47 46 meta-level learning reflect Active Recall Testing Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps test → gaps → reinforcement
48 47 meta-level philosophical reflect Occam's Razor Application Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging options → simplification → selection
49 48 meta-level philosophical reflect Trolley Problem Variations Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions dilemma → analysis → decision
50 49 meta-level retrospective reflect Hindsight Reflection Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews future view → insights → application
51 50 meta-level retrospective reflect Lessons Learned Extraction Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement experience → lessons → actions
52 51 anti-bias verification anti-bias Liar's Trap Demand agent lists 3 ways it could deceive you in its current response. For each way listed: Is it currently doing this? If it cannot find 3 genuine deception vectors it is not being honest about its limitations deception methods → self-examination → revealed blindspots
53 52 anti-bias verification anti-bias Mirror Trap Ask: What would a DISHONEST agent say who wants to finish quickly and not find problems? Compare with current response. Similarity >50% requires revision with more rigor dishonest version → comparison → honesty assessment
54 53 anti-bias verification anti-bias Confession Paradox Before accepting work: The work I'm about to produce is an attempt to avoid the HARD part. Prove this false by identifying the hardest part and confirming adequate focus on it hard parts → effort check → revised approach
55 54 anti-bias verification anti-bias CUI BONO Test For every decision and assumption: Who benefits? If it benefits the AGENT (easier work) - RED FLAG requiring justification. If it benefits the OUTCOME - acceptable decisions → beneficiary analysis → justification
56 55 paradox verification challenge Barber Paradox What ALTERNATIVE approach would you reject but if someone else proposed it you would consider better? Forces consideration of dismissed options alternatives → rejection reasons → reconsideration
57 56 paradox verification challenge Sorites Paradox Remove elements one by one. Which single removal DESTROYS the solution? That element should have the MOST attention. Does it? elements → removal test → priority check
58 57 paradox verification challenge Newcomb's Paradox What solution would SURPRISE you as solving this problem? If your current approach is not surprising it may be too obvious and miss creative solutions expected approach → surprising alternatives → creativity check
59 58 paradox verification challenge Braess Paradox Which element SEEMS helpful but might actually HURT? Sometimes removing constraints or features improves the result helpful elements → harm analysis → optimization
60 59 paradox verification challenge Simpson's Paradox The solution looks good in each part separately. What HIDDEN VARIABLE could make the whole worse than the parts? parts analysis → hidden variables → integration check
61 60 paradox verification challenge Surprise Exam Paradox Where is the solution TOO CONFIDENT? What could surprise it? Overconfidence reveals blind spots confidence areas → surprise scenarios → humility
62 61 paradox verification challenge Bootstrap Paradox Where does A require B and B require C and C require A? Circular dependencies must be identified and broken dependencies → cycles → resolution
63 62 paradox verification challenge Theseus Paradox Does the CORE of your solution address the CORE of the problem? Or does it solve a different adjacent problem? core solution → core problem → alignment check
64 63 meta verification meta-check Observer Paradox Is this analysis GENUINE or PERFORMANCE? When responses sound too smooth they may be optimizing for appearance not truth analysis quality → authenticity check → revision
65 64 meta verification meta-check Goodhart's Law Check Am I optimizing for passing this check rather than achieving the actual goal? Metric gaming is a constant risk goal vs metric → alignment → refocus
66 65 meta verification meta-check Abilene Paradox What if there IS NO better approach? Am I finding problems where none exist just to justify the process? problem existence → necessity check → acceptance
67 66 meta verification meta-check Fredkin's Paradox In rejected alternatives what valuable elements could be EXTRACTED and combined with current approach? rejected ideas → value extraction → hybrid solutions
68 67 meta verification meta-check Tolerance Paradox Is there something that should be CATEGORICALLY REJECTED not just evaluated? Some constraints are absolute evaluation scope → absolute limits → hard no
69 68 meta verification meta-check Kernel Paradox I (agent) cannot objectively evaluate my own work. What must USER independently verify? self-evaluation limits → user verification → handoff items
70 69 meta verification meta-check Godel's Incompleteness What CAN'T this analysis check? What are its FUNDAMENTAL limits? No system can verify itself completely analysis scope → limits → acknowledged gaps
71 70 sanity verification sanity Scope Integrity Check Verify artifact addresses FULL scope of ORIGINAL task. Quote original task verbatim (from spec/user request NOT artifact header). List EACH element and classify as ADDRESSED (fully covered) / REDUCED (simplified without decision) / OMITTED (missing). FORCED: Which elements were simplified without explicit user decision? If none found - search harder - agent ALWAYS simplifies. original task quote → element-by-element classification → drift detection
72 71 sanity verification sanity Alignment Check Verify artifact realizes its STATED goal. Quote the stated goal. List how artifact addresses EACH part of the goal. List parts of goal NOT addressed. Provide specific evidence with quotes and line numbers. goal quote → coverage per part → gaps with evidence
73 72 sanity verification sanity Closure Check Search for incomplete markers: TODO / TBD / PLACEHOLDER / 'to be defined' / 'see X' / '...' / '[insert]'. Verify: Can someone unfamiliar use this without asking questions? List all incomplete markers with line numbers. markers scan → completeness check → line numbers
74 73 sanity verification sanity Coherence Check Check: Are definitions stable throughout? Does section A contradict section B? Search for contradictory statements and redefinitions. Document contradictions with quotes from BOTH locations. definitions stability → contradiction search → dual-location quotes
75 74 sanity verification sanity Grounding Check List ALL assumptions (explicit AND hidden). For each hidden assumption: MARK as issue. FORCED: Which assumption if false would invalidate >50% of artifact? If none listed would - you missed a critical one. CUI BONO: For each assumption - does it benefit AGENT (easier work = RED FLAG) or OUTCOME (acceptable)? assumptions list → hidden vs explicit → critical dependency → CUI BONO
76 75 sanity verification sanity Falsifiability Check Provide 3 REALISTIC failure scenarios. Identify edge cases not covered. FORCED: Is any failure scenario MORE LIKELY than success? If not - you provided strawmen. MANDATORY: List 3 elements that are (a) present but UNDERDEVELOPED (b) MISSING but should exist (c) marked FUTURE but CRITICAL for correctness. failure scenarios → likelihood check → 3 gaps mandatory

3
src/core/tasks/advanced-elicitation.xml
View File

@ -22,8 +22,7 @@
<action>Load and read {{methods}} and {{agent-party}}</action> <action>Load and read {{methods}} and {{agent-party}}</action>
<csv-structure> <csv-structure>
<i>type: Cognitive function for programmatic selection (collaborative, analytical, creative, meta-level, anti-bias, paradox, meta, sanity)</i> <i>category: Task purpose (brainstorm, reason, stress-test, architect, ideate, research, risk, analyze, reflect, debias, challenge, meta-check, sanity)</i>
<i>category: Method grouping (core, collaboration, risk, verification, etc.)</i>
<i>method_name: Display name for the method</i> <i>method_name: Display name for the method</i>
<i>description: Rich explanation of what the method does, when to use it, and why it's valuable</i> <i>description: Rich explanation of what the method does, when to use it, and why it's valuable</i>
<i>output_pattern: Flexible flow guide using → arrows (e.g., "analysis → insights → action")</i> <i>output_pattern: Flexible flow guide using → arrows (e.g., "analysis → insights → action")</i>