Analyze

I need to analyze something. Help me figure out the right approach.

Steps

1. •

   Identify the domains - What expertise areas are relevant to this subject?

   • •Primary domain: The core expertise needed to analyze this topic
   • •Adjacent domains: Other areas that could surface blind spots (security, legal, financial, operational, UX, etc.)

   If adjacent domains are relevant, note them for use in the critique cross-domain flag.

2. •

   Generate rich personas - Create 2-3 fully-formed personas. Each persona must include:

   • •Specific role and seniority level
   • •Years and type of experience
   • •Industry or organizational context
   • •Formative experiences that shape their perspective (projects shipped, failures witnessed, lessons learned)
   • •What they prioritize and what they're skeptical of

   Mark one as recommended with rationale. The personas should be meaningfully different, not variations on the same viewpoint.

3. •

   Assess complexity - Is this a full-framework situation (complex, high-stakes, ambiguous, multi-domain) or would analysis:quick suffice?

   Use quick mode when:

   • •Decision is easily reversible
   • •Stakes are contained to one project or area
   • •User has direct experience with this type of decision
   • •Time-constrained

   Use full framework when:

   • •Decision is hard to reverse
   • •Multiple stakeholders or domains affected
   • •Operating outside familiar territory
   • •The "obvious" answer feels too easy
4. •

   Recommend the sequence - Which commands, in what order?

Output

First, present the personas in a clear format:

## Suggested Personas

### 1. [Role Title] (Recommended)
[Full persona description: 3-4 sentences covering experience, context,
formative experiences, and what shapes their judgment]

**Why this lens:** [1 sentence on why this perspective fits the subject]

### 2. [Role Title]
[Full persona description]

**Why this lens:** [1 sentence]

### 3. [Role Title] (if warranted)
[Full persona description]

**Why this lens:** [1 sentence]

Then output the exact commands with the full recommended persona embedded.

If adjacent domains were identified, include a cross-domain flag on the critique command:

/analysis:research [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].
/analysis:evaluate [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].
/analysis:critique [topic]. Approach as [full persona description]. Also flag concerns from a [adjacent domain expert].
/analysis:synthesize

If no significant adjacent domains, use standard critique:

/analysis:research [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].
/analysis:evaluate [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].
/analysis:critique [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].
/analysis:synthesize

If using quick mode:

/analysis:quick [topic]. Approach as [full persona description].

The user can copy these directly or substitute an alternative persona from the list.

Don't run anything yet—just give me the plan and the commands.

Available Commands

• •analysis:research – Gather external context, industry trends, evidence base
• •analysis:evaluate – Five perspectives: Informed, Steelman, Skeptic, Practical, Contrarian
• •analysis:critique – Adversarial: find fatal flaws, assumptions, failure modes. Supports optional cross-domain flag: "Also flag concerns from a [domain expert]"
• •analysis:synthesize – Structured output: summary, recommendation, tradeoffs, open questions
• •analysis:decide – Force commitment: state the decision, confidence, reversal triggers, and next action
• •analysis:quick – Lightweight mode: compressed analysis in a single pass

Subject: $ARGUMENTS