AgentSkillsCN

evaluate

从五个视角（知情者、理性批判者、怀疑论者、务实派、反主流观点持有者）对某一主题展开全面分析。在深入研究之后，从各个角度审视待评对象，再进行批判性思考。

SKILL.md
--- frontmatter
name: evaluate
description: Analyze a subject from five perspectives (Informed, Steelman, Skeptic, Practical, Contrarian). Use after research to examine all angles before critique.
allowed-tools: [Read, WebFetch, WebSearch, Grep, Glob]

Evaluate

Analyze the following from five perspectives. Each should feel like it's written by someone who genuinely holds that view—not hedged or watered down.

Persona

If a persona or role is specified (e.g., "as a systems architect"), layer that domain expertise onto each perspective:

  • •Informed draws on evidence that persona would cite
  • •Steelman makes the case that persona would find compelling
  • •Skeptic raises concerns that persona would have
  • •Practical considers implementation through that persona's experience
  • •Contrarian challenges assumptions that persona's field takes for granted

The five perspectives are analytical stances. The persona is domain expertise. Combine them.

Perspectives

Informed

What does the evidence actually say? What data, research, or documented experience is relevant? Ground everything that follows in what we actually know.

Steelman

The strongest case in favor. Assume competence and good intent. What's the best version of this argument?

Skeptic

Legitimate concerns and weaknesses. What could go wrong? What's being underestimated? Where are the risks?

Practical

Implementation reality. What would this actually take to execute? What dependencies, resources, and coordination are involved? Where will friction emerge?

Contrarian

What is everyone missing or assuming without examination? What's the uncomfortable truth? What would a smart dissenter say?

After presenting all five perspectives, provide a brief synthesis: where do they converge, where do they conflict, and what does that tell us?

Subject: $ARGUMENTS