L’interface est localisée ; les présentations et documents des Skills sont traduits automatiquement par IA dans votre langue. Le code, les commandes, chemins et termes techniques restent en version originale, et le document de l’auteur fait foi.
Explorer les Skills
Développement · SKILL.md

dream

dream

Deep creative exploration engine. Competing perspectives, stress-tested by a 4-persona council, scored by integrity. The approach that survives attack wins — not the one that sounds best.

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

Documentation de la Skill

GitHub

name: dream description: "Deep creative exploration engine. Competing perspectives, stress-tested by a 4-persona council, scored by integrity. The approach that survives attack wins — not the one that sounds best." user-invocable: true allowed-tools: Agent, Bash, Read, Write, Grep, Glob, WebSearch kernel: kind: workflow version: 1 side_effects: writes_meta confirmation: none

Not "give me 3 options" — structured divergence: competing value systems + adversarial stress test + integrity scoring.

The winning approach is the one that SURVIVES attack, not the one that sounds best.

Use before any non-trivial decision. Use when the obvious answer feels too easy.

<on_start> agentdb read-start # prior dreams + learnings seed the perspectives; don't re-explore killed approaches </on_start>

<skill_load> always: skills/quality/SKILL.md, skills/architecture/SKILL.md on_domain: api: skills/architecture/reference/api.md, skills/architecture/reference/backend.md frontend: skills/frontend/SKILL.md backend: skills/architecture/reference/backend.md security: skills/tearitapart/reference/security.md </skill_load>

Dreams that ignore the codebase are fantasies, not proposals.

Target: 90% code reduction. Must reference actual files that could be deleted.
Format: 3-8 lines. Effort estimate. Coverage percentage.
Target: complete solution. Must sketch actual architecture, not hand-wave.
Format: full description with component diagram. Effort estimate.
Target: 80% solution with clear upgrade path.
Must explicitly state what's deferred and the cost of deferral.
Format: concrete plan. Effort estimate. Tradeoff table.

Tier 1: generate all 3 inline. Tier 2+: spawn dreamer agent for codebase-grounded perspectives.

<persona id="user" concern="usability, complexity, does it solve MY problem?">
  Cuts through elegance. "Does it work for the person using this every day?"
</persona>

<persona id="adversary" concern="what breaks, worst case, what was missed">
  Pure attack mode. Edge cases, race conditions, security holes, wrong assumptions.
  If they can't find a flaw, the approach is strong.
</persona>

<persona id="operator" concern="can we ship it, can we maintain it, blast radius">
  Operational reality. Deployment, monitoring, rollback, on-call burden.
  Beautiful code that's hell to operate fails.
</persona>

Each persona: 2-3 lines per perspective. Specific concerns, not essays.

<ask_user> Use AskUserQuestion when: perspectives generated, before running council Ask: "Three perspectives ready. Which resonates, or run all through stress test?" Options: stress test all, lean toward {minimalist|maximalist|pragmatist}, rethink framing </ask_user>

  • How many council members raised critical (not fixable) concerns?
  • Did the perspective already account for the concerns?
  • Are the flaws structural or cosmetic?

= 0.8: ANTIFRAGILE — stronger because of the attacks. = 0.6: VIABLE — survives with minor fixes. < 0.6: SHATTERED — fundamental flaws. Don't pursue.

Rank surviving perspectives by score. If ALL shatter: the problem needs reframing (thermal shock).

Context

{codebase state, constraints, existing patterns}

Perspectives (ranked by integrity)

{emoji} {name} — integrity: {score}

{perspective content} Effort: {estimate} Council verdict: {1-line summary per persona} Survived because: {why it's robust} — {perspective name}

{repeat for each surviving perspective}

Shattered

{any that didn't survive, with reason}


Recommendation

{highest integrity + why. hybrid options if scores are close.}

Next: /kernel:forge {approach} or /kernel:ingest for guided execution. </output_format>

<ask_user> Use AskUserQuestion when: results presented with ranked perspectives Ask: "Proceed with {winner}, hybrid approach, or rethink the problem?" Options: proceed with winner, hybrid of top 2, rethink </ask_user>

  1. Record why each shattered (agentdb learn failure)
  2. Ask: is the problem statement wrong? Solving the right thing?
  3. Generate 1-2 reframings of the original problem
  4. Return to diverge phase with reframed problem (max 1 reframe)
  5. If still shatters: STOP. "This needs human decomposition."

<github_integration> If gh authenticated and profile is github-oss or github-production: Post dream to GitHub Discussions (Decisions category). Otherwise: Write to _meta/dreams/{topic}.md only. </github_integration>

Skills enregistrées