num,category,method_name,description,output_pattern
1,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
2,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
3,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
4,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
5,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
6,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
7,collaboration,Mentor and Apprentice,Senior expert teaches junior while junior asks naive questions - surfaces hidden assumptions through teaching,explanation → questions → deeper understanding
8,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
9,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
10,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
11,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
12,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
13,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
14,advanced,Self-Consistency Validation,Generate multiple independent approaches then compare for consistency - crucial for high-stakes decisions where verification matters,approaches → comparison → consensus
15,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
16,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
17,competitive,Red Team vs Blue Team,Adversarial attack-defend analysis to find vulnerabilities - critical for security testing and building robust solutions,defense → attack → hardening
18,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
19,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
20,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
21,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
22,technical,Algorithm Olympics,Multiple approaches compete on the same problem with benchmarks - finds optimal solution through direct comparison,implementations → benchmarks → winner
23,technical,Security Audit Personas,Hacker + defender + auditor examine system from different threat models - comprehensive security review from multiple angles,vulnerabilities → defenses → compliance
24,technical,Performance Profiler Panel,Database expert + frontend specialist + DevOps engineer diagnose slowness - finds bottlenecks across the full stack,symptoms → analysis → optimizations
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,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,What If Scenarios,Explore alternative realities to understand possibilities and implications - valuable for contingency planning and exploration,scenarios → implications → insights
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,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,Genre Mashup,Combine two unrelated domains to find fresh approaches - innovation through unexpected cross-pollination,domain A + domain B → hybrid insights
31,research,Literature Review Personas,Optimist researcher + skeptic researcher + synthesizer review sources - balanced assessment of evidence quality,sources → critiques → synthesis
32,research,Thesis Defense Simulation,Student defends hypothesis against committee with different concerns - stress-tests research methodology and conclusions,thesis → challenges → defense → refinements
33,research,Comparative Analysis Matrix,Multiple analysts evaluate options against weighted criteria - structured decision-making with explicit scoring,options → criteria → scores → recommendation
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,risk,Failure Mode Analysis,Systematically explore how each component could fail - critical for reliability engineering and safety-critical systems,components → failures → prevention
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,risk,Identify Potential Risks,Brainstorm what could go wrong across all categories - fundamental for project planning and deployment preparation,categories → risks → mitigations
38,risk,Chaos Monkey Scenarios,Deliberately break things to test resilience and recovery - ensures systems handle failures gracefully,break → observe → harden
39,core,First Principles Analysis,Strip away assumptions to rebuild from fundamental truths - breakthrough technique for innovation and solving impossible problems,assumptions → truths → new approach
40,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
41,core,Socratic Questioning,Use targeted questions to reveal hidden assumptions and guide discovery - excellent for teaching and self-discovery,questions → revelations → understanding
42,core,Critique and Refine,Systematic review to identify strengths and weaknesses then improve - standard quality check for drafts,strengths/weaknesses → improvements → refined
43,core,Explain Reasoning,Walk through step-by-step thinking to show how conclusions were reached - crucial for transparency,steps → logic → conclusion
44,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
45,learning,Feynman Technique,Explain complex concepts simply as if teaching a child - the ultimate test of true understanding,complex → simple → gaps → mastery
46,learning,Active Recall Testing,Test understanding without references to verify true knowledge - essential for identifying gaps,test → gaps → reinforcement
47,philosophical,Occam's Razor Application,Find the simplest sufficient explanation by eliminating unnecessary complexity - essential for debugging,options → simplification → selection
48,philosophical,Trolley Problem Variations,Explore ethical trade-offs through moral dilemmas - valuable for understanding values and difficult decisions,dilemma → analysis → decision
49,retrospective,Hindsight Reflection,Imagine looking back from the future to gain perspective - powerful for project reviews,future view → insights → application
50,retrospective,Lessons Learned Extraction,Systematically identify key takeaways and actionable improvements - essential for continuous improvement,experience → lessons → actions
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,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,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,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,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,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,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,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,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,challenge,Surprise Exam Paradox,Where is the solution TOO CONFIDENT? What could surprise it? Overconfidence reveals blind spots,confidence areas → surprise scenarios → humility
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,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-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-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-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-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-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-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-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,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,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,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,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,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,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
76,coherence,Camouflage Test,Can the new element be "hidden" in the existing system without detection by an experienced developer? If immediately visible as "foreign body" - coherence is broken. Test: would code reviewer flag this as "doesn't fit"?,insertion → detection test → camouflage score
77,coherence,Quine's Web,Quine's holism: meaning comes from network of connections. Map how new element connects to existing ones. Does it use the same "nodes" (abstractions interfaces conventions) as the rest? Count reused vs new abstractions,connection mapping → node reuse → web integration score
78,coherence,Least Surprise Principle,Show new element to someone knowing only the rest of system. List 5 things that would SURPRISE them. Each surprise = potential coherence violation. FORCED: if <3 surprises found - look harder,element presentation → surprise list → surprise justification
79,coherence,DNA Inheritance,Identify system "genes": (1) naming conventions (2) error handling patterns (3) logging style (4) file structure (5) import organization (6) comment style (7) test patterns. Score: how many does new element inherit vs mutate?,genes extraction → inheritance check → mutation list
80,coherence,Transplant Rejection,Will system "reject" new element? Run through existing gates: linting rules / type checks / test patterns / CI checks. List each gate and PASS/FAIL. Any FAIL without justification = coherence issue,rejection mechanisms → compatibility test → immune response
81,coherence,Structural Isomorphism,Measure STRUCTURE of new element vs analogous existing elements: (1) nesting depth (2) function length distribution (3) cyclomatic complexity (4) file size. Delta >30% requires justification,structure extraction → isomorphism mapping → structural delta
82,coherence,Temporal Consistency,Does new element match system's "era"? Check: (1) library versions used (2) language features/idioms (3) API styles (async/sync callbacks/promises). List anachronisms - modern code in legacy system or vice versa,temporal markers → age estimation → anachronism detection
83,coherence,Boundary Violation,Map module/domain boundaries in existing system. Does new element RESPECT them? List every cross-boundary reach. Compare with how existing elements reach. New reaches = potential violations,boundary map → reach analysis → violation list
84,coherence,Assumption Inheritance,List assumptions existing system relies on (explicit in docs + hidden in code). Does new element SHARE or CONTRADICT them? Each contradiction requires explicit migration/compatibility handling,system assumptions → element assumptions → conflict detection
85,coherence,Compression Delta,Count NEW concepts someone must learn to understand new element IF they already know the system. List each: new abstraction / new pattern / new convention / new dependency. Target: ≤2 new concepts. More = low coherence,existing concepts → new concepts required → compression ratio