ck:predict
Multi-persona risk analysis and debate tool for proposed architectural changes.
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/ck-predict && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/12353" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/ck-predict && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/ck-predict
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
5 expert personas debate proposed changes before implementation. Catches architectural, security, performance, and UX issues early. Use before major features or risky changes.Key capabilities
- →Analyze proposed changes from multiple expert perspectives
- →Identify architectural risks before implementation
- →Evaluate security vulnerabilities in design proposals
- →Assess performance impacts of new features
- →Debate conflicts and produce a consensus verdict
How it works
Five expert personas independently analyze a proposed change, then debate conflicts to produce a consensus verdict.
Inputs & outputs
When to use ck:predict
- →Predict architectural risks
- →Analyze high-risk feature plans
- →Validate design changes
About this skill
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:debugfor bugs,ck:planfor 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
- Read the proposed change/feature description from the argument
- Read relevant code if file paths are provided (grep for affected areas)
- Each persona analyzes independently — do not let personas influence each other during this phase
- Identify agreements — points where all (or 4+) personas align
- Identify conflicts — points where personas meaningfully disagree
- Weigh tradeoffs — for each conflict, evaluate which concern has higher impact
- 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
When not to use it
- →For trivial or low-risk changes
- →For already-approved work with no open design questions
- →For pure dependency upgrades with no API changes
Limitations
- →Not suitable for minor changes
- →Requires a clear feature description or change proposal as input
- →Verdict can be STOP if critical unresolved issues are found
How it compares
This structured debate process identifies potential issues and provides actionable recommendations before coding, unlike a single-person review.
Compared to similar skills
ck:predict side by side with the closest alternatives in the catalog.
| Skill | Installs | Updated | Safety | Difficulty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ck:predict (this skill) | 0 | 3mo | No flags | Intermediate |
| ai-spec-review | 0 | 2mo | Review | Advanced |
| agent-v3-security-architect | 3 | 6mo | Review | Advanced |
| pair-capability-verify-adoption | 0 | 5mo | No flags | Intermediate |
Try saying
Example prompts that trigger this skill in your AI assistant.
More by lengo0951
View all by lengo0951 →You might also like
ai-spec-review
jyjeanne
Review a markdown specification across business logic, architecture, performance, security, testing, DevOps/CI/CD, dependencies, standards, UX, documentation, code quality, and maintainability. Generates a structured review, risk register, test plan, implementation tasks, and dimension scores (0–10)
agent-v3-security-architect
ruvnet
Agent skill for v3-security-architect - invoke with $agent-v3-security-architect
pair-capability-verify-adoption
foomakers
Checks code and configuration against project adoption files for a given scope. Detection-only: returns conformity/non-conformity list per area without resolving issues. Caller decides resolution. Invocable independently or composed by /pair-process-review and /pair-process-implement.
golden-principles
rjmurillo
Scan repository for golden principle violations with agent-readable remediation. Enforces GP-001 through GP-008 from .agents/governance/golden-principles.md. Use when auditing compliance, preparing PRs, or running garbage collection scans.
audit-workflow
FlorianDrevet
Use when: code audit, technical audit, security audit, performance audit, scalability audit, database audit, audit markdown, GitHub audit issues, findings reconciliation, labels sync.
harness-boundary
zkp442910864
Harness 工程边界约束与变更评估。Use when: 评估代码变更影响范围、确认安全边界、检查工程规范合规性、审查变更风险等级。