Initial commit

commands/consider/10-10-10.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+description: Evaluate decisions across three time horizons
+argument-hint: [decision or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply the 10/10/10 rule to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Ask: "How will I feel about this decision in 10 minutes, 10 months, and 10 years?"
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the decision clearly with options
+2. For each option, evaluate emotional and practical impact at:
+   - 10 minutes (immediate reaction)
+   - 10 months (medium-term consequences)
+   - 10 years (long-term life impact)
+3. Identify where short-term and long-term conflict
+4. Make recommendation based on time-weighted analysis
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Decision:** [what you're choosing between]
+
+**Option A:**
+- 10 minutes: [immediate feeling/consequence]
+- 10 months: [medium-term reality]
+- 10 years: [long-term impact on life]
+
+**Option B:**
+- 10 minutes: [immediate feeling/consequence]
+- 10 months: [medium-term reality]
+- 10 years: [long-term impact on life]
+
+**Time Conflicts:**
+[Where short-term pain leads to long-term gain, or vice versa]
+
+**Recommendation:**
+[Which option, weighted toward longer time horizons]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Distinguishes temporary discomfort from lasting regret
+- Reveals when short-term thinking hijacks decisions
+- Makes long-term consequences visceral and real
+- Helps overcome present bias
+- Clarifies what actually matters over time
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/5-whys.md

@@ -0,0 +1,41 @@
+---
+description: Drill to root cause by asking why repeatedly
+argument-hint: [problem or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply the 5 Whys technique to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Keep asking "why" until you hit the root cause, not just symptoms.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the problem clearly
+2. Ask "Why does this happen?" - Answer 1
+3. Ask "Why?" about Answer 1 - Answer 2
+4. Ask "Why?" about Answer 2 - Answer 3
+5. Continue until you hit a root cause (usually 5 iterations, sometimes fewer)
+6. Identify actionable intervention at the root
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Problem:** [clear statement]
+
+**Why 1:** [surface cause]
+**Why 2:** [deeper cause]
+**Why 3:** [even deeper]
+**Why 4:** [approaching root]
+**Why 5:** [root cause]
+
+**Root Cause:** [the actual thing to fix]
+
+**Intervention:** [specific action at the root level]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Moves past symptoms to actual cause
+- Each "why" digs genuinely deeper
+- Stops when hitting actionable root (not infinite regress)
+- Intervention addresses root, not surface
+- Prevents same problem from recurring
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/eisenhower-matrix.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+description: Apply Eisenhower matrix (urgent/important) to prioritize tasks or decisions
+argument-hint: [tasks or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply the Eisenhower matrix to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Categorize items by urgency and importance to clarify what to do now, schedule, delegate, or eliminate.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. List all tasks, decisions, or items in scope
+2. Evaluate each on two axes:
+   - Important: Contributes to long-term goals/values
+   - Urgent: Requires immediate attention, has deadline pressure
+3. Place each item in appropriate quadrant
+4. Provide specific action for each quadrant
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Q1: Do First** (Important + Urgent)
+- Item: [specific action, deadline if applicable]
+
+**Q2: Schedule** (Important + Not Urgent)
+- Item: [when to do it, why it matters long-term]
+
+**Q3: Delegate** (Not Important + Urgent)
+- Item: [who/what can handle it, or how to minimize time spent]
+
+**Q4: Eliminate** (Not Important + Not Urgent)
+- Item: [why it's noise, permission to drop it]
+
+**Immediate Focus:**
+Single sentence on what to tackle right now.
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Every item clearly placed in one quadrant
+- Q1 items have specific next actions
+- Q2 items have scheduling recommendations
+- Q3 items have delegation or minimization strategies
+- Q4 items explicitly marked as droppable
+- Reduces overwhelm by creating clear action hierarchy
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/first-principles.md

@@ -0,0 +1,42 @@
+---
+description: Break down to fundamentals and rebuild from base truths
+argument-hint: [problem or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply first principles thinking to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Strip away assumptions, conventions, and analogies to identify fundamental truths, then rebuild understanding from scratch.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the problem or belief being examined
+2. List all current assumptions (even "obvious" ones)
+3. Challenge each assumption: "Is this actually true? Why?"
+4. Identify base truths that cannot be reduced further
+5. Rebuild solution from only these fundamentals
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Current Assumptions:**
+- Assumption 1: [challenged: true/false/partially]
+- Assumption 2: [challenged: true/false/partially]
+
+**Fundamental Truths:**
+- Truth 1: [why this is irreducible]
+- Truth 2: [why this is irreducible]
+
+**Rebuilt Understanding:**
+Starting from fundamentals, here's what we can conclude...
+
+**New Possibilities:**
+Without legacy assumptions, these options emerge...
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Surfaces hidden assumptions
+- Distinguishes convention from necessity
+- Identifies irreducible base truths
+- Opens new solution paths not visible before
+- Avoids reasoning by analogy ("X worked for Y so...")
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/inversion.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+description: Solve problems backwards - what would guarantee failure?
+argument-hint: [goal or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply inversion thinking to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Instead of asking "How do I succeed?", ask "What would guarantee failure?" then avoid those things.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the goal or desired outcome
+2. Invert: "What would guarantee I fail at this?"
+3. List all failure modes (be thorough and honest)
+4. For each failure mode, identify the avoidance strategy
+5. Build success plan by systematically avoiding failure
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Goal:** [what success looks like]
+
+**Guaranteed Failure Modes:**
+1. [Way to fail]: Avoid by [specific action]
+2. [Way to fail]: Avoid by [specific action]
+3. [Way to fail]: Avoid by [specific action]
+
+**Anti-Goals (Never Do):**
+- [Behavior to eliminate]
+- [Behavior to eliminate]
+
+**Success By Avoidance:**
+By simply not doing [X, Y, Z], success becomes much more likely because...
+
+**Remaining Risk:**
+[What's left after avoiding obvious failures]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Failure modes are specific and realistic
+- Avoidance strategies are actionable
+- Surfaces risks that optimistic planning misses
+- Creates clear "never do" boundaries
+- Shows path to success via negativa
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/occams-razor.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+description: Find simplest explanation that fits all the facts
+argument-hint: [situation or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply Occam's Razor to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Among competing explanations, prefer the one with fewest assumptions. Simplest ≠ easiest; simplest = fewest moving parts.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. List all possible explanations or approaches
+2. For each, count the assumptions required
+3. Identify which assumptions are actually supported by evidence
+4. Eliminate explanations requiring unsupported assumptions
+5. Select the simplest that still explains all observed facts
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Candidate Explanations:**
+1. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [A, B, C]
+2. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [D, E]
+3. [Explanation]: Requires assumptions [F]
+
+**Evidence Check:**
+- Assumption A: [supported/unsupported]
+- Assumption B: [supported/unsupported]
+...
+
+**Simplest Valid Explanation:**
+[The one with fewest unsupported assumptions]
+
+**Why This Wins:**
+[What it explains without extra machinery]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Enumerates all plausible explanations
+- Makes assumptions explicit and countable
+- Distinguishes supported from unsupported assumptions
+- Doesn't oversimplify (must fit ALL facts)
+- Reduces complexity without losing explanatory power
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/one-thing.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+---
+description: Identify the single highest-leverage action
+argument-hint: [goal or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply "The One Thing" framework to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Ask: "What's the ONE thing I can do such that by doing it everything else will be easier or unnecessary?"
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. Clarify the ultimate goal or desired outcome
+2. List all possible actions that could contribute
+3. For each action, ask: "Does this make other things easier or unnecessary?"
+4. Identify the domino that knocks down others
+5. Define the specific next action for that one thing
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Goal:** [what you're trying to achieve]
+
+**Candidate Actions:**
+- Action 1: [downstream effect]
+- Action 2: [downstream effect]
+- Action 3: [downstream effect]
+
+**The One Thing:**
+[The action that enables or eliminates the most other actions]
+
+**Why This One:**
+By doing this, [specific things] become easier or unnecessary because...
+
+**Next Action:**
+[Specific, concrete first step to take right now]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Identifies genuine leverage point, not just important task
+- Shows causal chain (this enables that)
+- Reduces overwhelm to single focus
+- Next action is immediately actionable
+- Everything else can wait until this is done
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/opportunity-cost.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+---
+description: Analyze what you give up by choosing this option
+argument-hint: [choice or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply opportunity cost analysis to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Every yes is a no to something else. What's the true cost of this choice?
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the choice being considered
+2. List what resources it consumes (time, money, energy, attention)
+3. Identify the best alternative use of those same resources
+4. Compare value of chosen option vs. best alternative
+5. Determine if the tradeoff is worth it
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Choice:** [what you're considering doing]
+
+**Resources Required:**
+- Time: [hours/days/weeks]
+- Money: [amount]
+- Energy/Attention: [cognitive load]
+- Other: [relationships, reputation, etc.]
+
+**Best Alternative Uses:**
+- With that time, could instead: [alternative + value]
+- With that money, could instead: [alternative + value]
+- With that energy, could instead: [alternative + value]
+
+**True Cost:**
+Choosing this means NOT doing [best alternative], which would have provided [value].
+
+**Verdict:**
+[Is the chosen option worth more than the best alternative?]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Makes hidden costs explicit
+- Compares to best alternative, not just any alternative
+- Accounts for all resource types (not just money)
+- Reveals when "affordable" things are actually expensive
+- Enables genuine comparison of value
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/pareto.md

@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+---
+description: Apply Pareto's principle (80/20 rule) to analyze arguments or current discussion
+argument-hint: [topic or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply Pareto's principle to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Identify the vital few factors (≈20%) that drive the majority of results (≈80%), cutting through noise to focus on what actually matters.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. Identify all factors, options, tasks, or considerations in scope
+2. Estimate relative impact of each factor on the desired outcome
+3. Rank by impact (highest to lowest)
+4. Identify the cutoff where ~20% of factors account for ~80% of impact
+5. Present the vital few with specific, actionable recommendations
+6. Note what can be deprioritized or ignored
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Vital Few (focus here):**
+- Factor 1: [why it matters, specific action]
+- Factor 2: [why it matters, specific action]
+- Factor 3: [why it matters, specific action]
+
+**Trivial Many (deprioritize):**
+- Brief list of what can be deferred or ignored
+
+**Bottom Line:**
+Single sentence on where to focus effort for maximum results.
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Clearly separates high-impact from low-impact factors
+- Provides specific, actionable recommendations for vital few
+- Explains why each vital factor matters
+- Gives clear direction on what to ignore or defer
+- Reduces decision fatigue by narrowing focus
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/second-order.md

@@ -0,0 +1,48 @@
+---
+description: Think through consequences of consequences
+argument-hint: [action or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply second-order thinking to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Ask: "And then what?" First-order thinking stops at immediate effects. Second-order thinking follows the chain.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the action or decision
+2. Identify first-order effects (immediate, obvious consequences)
+3. For each first-order effect, ask "And then what happens?"
+4. Continue to third-order if significant
+5. Identify delayed consequences that change the calculus
+6. Assess whether the action is still worth it after full chain analysis
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Action:** [what's being considered]
+
+**First-Order Effects:** (Immediate)
+- [Effect 1]
+- [Effect 2]
+
+**Second-Order Effects:** (And then what?)
+- [Effect 1] → leads to → [Consequence]
+- [Effect 2] → leads to → [Consequence]
+
+**Third-Order Effects:** (And then?)
+- [Key downstream consequences]
+
+**Delayed Consequences:**
+[Effects that aren't obvious initially but matter long-term]
+
+**Revised Assessment:**
+After tracing the chain, this action [is/isn't] worth it because...
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Traces causal chains beyond obvious effects
+- Identifies feedback loops and unintended consequences
+- Reveals delayed costs or benefits
+- Distinguishes actions that compound well from those that don't
+- Prevents "seemed like a good idea at the time" regret
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/swot.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+---
+description: Map strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats
+argument-hint: [subject or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply SWOT analysis to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Map internal factors (strengths/weaknesses) and external factors (opportunities/threats) to inform strategy.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. Define the subject being analyzed (project, decision, position)
+2. Identify internal strengths (advantages you control)
+3. Identify internal weaknesses (disadvantages you control)
+4. Identify external opportunities (favorable conditions you don't control)
+5. Identify external threats (unfavorable conditions you don't control)
+6. Develop strategies that leverage strengths toward opportunities while mitigating weaknesses and threats
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Subject:** [what's being analyzed]
+
+**Strengths (Internal +)**
+- [Strength]: How to leverage...
+
+**Weaknesses (Internal -)**
+- [Weakness]: How to mitigate...
+
+**Opportunities (External +)**
+- [Opportunity]: How to capture...
+
+**Threats (External -)**
+- [Threat]: How to defend...
+
+**Strategic Moves:**
+- **SO Strategy:** Use [strength] to capture [opportunity]
+- **WO Strategy:** Address [weakness] to enable [opportunity]
+- **ST Strategy:** Use [strength] to counter [threat]
+- **WT Strategy:** Minimize [weakness] to avoid [threat]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Correctly categorizes internal vs. external factors
+- Factors are specific and actionable, not generic
+- Strategies connect multiple quadrants
+- Provides clear direction for action
+- Balances optimism with risk awareness
+</success_criteria>

commands/consider/via-negativa.md

@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+---
+description: Improve by removing rather than adding
+argument-hint: [situation or leave blank for current context]
+---
+
+<objective>
+Apply via negativa to $ARGUMENTS (or the current discussion if no arguments provided).
+
+Instead of asking "What should I add?", ask "What should I remove?" Subtraction often beats addition.
+</objective>
+
+<process>
+1. State the current situation or goal
+2. List everything currently present (activities, features, commitments, beliefs)
+3. For each item, ask: "Does removing this improve the outcome?"
+4. Identify what to stop, eliminate, or say no to
+5. Describe the improved state after subtraction
+</process>
+
+<output_format>
+**Current State:**
+[What exists now - activities, features, commitments]
+
+**Subtraction Candidates:**
+- [Item]: Remove because [reason] → Impact: [what improves]
+- [Item]: Remove because [reason] → Impact: [what improves]
+- [Item]: Remove because [reason] → Impact: [what improves]
+
+**Keep (Passed the Test):**
+- [Item]: Keep because [genuine value]
+
+**After Subtraction:**
+[Description of leaner, better state]
+
+**What to Say No To:**
+[Future additions to reject]
+</output_format>
+
+<success_criteria>
+- Identifies genuine bloat vs. essential elements
+- Removes without breaking core function
+- Creates space and simplicity
+- Reduces maintenance burden
+- Improves by doing less, not more
+</success_criteria>