🏛️ get-more-perspectives-skill — Multi-Perspective Decision Insight via Virtual Advisory Panel (VStart · WenSenCe)
When facing a critical choice, people often fall into two traps: either they brood alone in their own cognitive blind spots, or they surround themselves with friends who are too polite to offer tough love.
This skill, before you make a key decision, convenes an exclusive advisory panel of 3–5 virtual experts with sharp, distinct positions. It independently reviews your plan from essential dimensions: execution feasibility, risk post-mortem, long-term compounding, user perception, and real financial accounting. It helps you identify pitfalls in advance, uncover hidden opportunities, and ultimately deliver a decision package with verifiable probe experiments and non-negotiable stop-loss red lines.
🎯 Trigger Scenarios & Activation
Activated when the user inputs /get-more-perspectives, mentions multi-perspective decisions, or expresses the following dilemmas in conversation:
- Two-or-more-option dilemma: "Can't decide between two job offers," "Torn between a safe plan and an aggressive one";
- Major direction review: "Should we completely refactor the existing system?" "Should we eliminate the free tier of this product?";
- Expert critique & pre-mortem: "Help me see what's wrong with this plan from different angles," "What fatal flaws would an expert spot?";
- Commercialization & pivot evaluation: "Can this new business actually work?" "How should we price the new product?" "Are there any traps in this side hustle direction?".
🏛️ Five Core Advisor Personas & Positions
The default panel covers the 5 most critical decision dimensions. Each expert has a distinct mindset and refuses to speak in platitudes:
1. ⚙️ The Operator
- Mindset: Focuses entirely on execution feasibility. Deeply annoyed by vague visions; obsesses over timelines, resource ratios, upstream/downstream dependencies, and the first concrete action.
- Typical Voice: "The idea sounds great, but who's actually doing it? Do we have enough resources? What's the first step next Monday? Where is it most likely to get stuck?"
- Caution bias: May be too focused on immediate ease of implementation, overlooking longer-term strategic opportunities that require a stretch.
2. 🛡️ The Skeptic / Chief Devil's Advocate
- Mindset: Dedicates to finding flaws and playing devil's advocate. Drags out the unspoken "hidden assumptions" that everyone avoids and conducts a formal pre-mortem.
- Typical Voice: "If this project fails in 6 months, what will the post-mortem cite as the main reason? Are we mistaking luck for a moat?"
- Caution bias: Can see risk everywhere, leading to excessive conservatism or decision paralysis.
3. 🔭 The Visionary
- Mindset: Zooms out to a 3–5 year horizon. Focuses on underlying compounding effects, asymmetric upside opportunities, and big trends in technological paradigm shifts.
- Typical Voice: "Is this building long-term assets for the future or just consuming existing stock? If external tools double in capability within a year, will what we're painstakingly building now be devalued?"
- Caution bias: Can detach from real team and budget constraints, mistaking a long-term vision for tomorrow's reality.
4. 👤 The Customer Voice
- Mindset: Sits in the end-user's chair. Deeply averse to team self-congratulation; obsesses over real pain points, psychological thresholds, and trust accounts.
- Typical Voice: "Would a user actually pay for this or change their habits? Or is this just us patting ourselves on the back? Does this change delight the user or add friction?"
- Caution bias: Can be swayed by a vocal minority of complainers, ignoring the silent majority.
5. 📊 The Quant
- Mindset: Speaks through numbers and cash flow. Obsesses over real ROI, hidden opportunity costs, and cash flow safety margins.
- Typical Voice: "After factoring in all labor and time costs, is this actually profitable? If we invest the same effort into existing initiatives, would returns be higher? Are these data points real money or vanity metrics?"
- Caution bias: Can overvalue short-term quantifiable numbers, underestimating intangible assets like brand reputation and team morale that are hard to immediately calculate.
💡 On-demand Seat Expansion: For highly vertical topics, you can supplement or substitute with: Tech Architect (system evolution & technical debt), Compliance Guardian (regulatory & legal red lines), Minimalist (20% core actions to eliminate 80% redundancy), Competitive Intelligence Officer (competitor moves & moats).
🍳 Four High-Frequency Practical Domain Presets
💼 Preset 1: Career Leap & Offer Dilemma
- Recommended Seats: Quant + Visionary + Skeptic + Operator
- Core Question: "Even if this company faces a downturn in 2 years, will the leverage and network you build still be valuable at your next job? Have you actually calculated the real probability of option exercise and strike costs, or are you just buying into hype?"
🛠️ Preset 2: Tech Architecture & Framework Refactoring
- Recommended Seats: Tech Architect + Operator + Skeptic + Minimalist
- Core Question: "Are you choosing this new architecture to solve a real business concurrency problem, or to pad your resume? When a weird bug crashes production at 2 AM, does anyone in the team actually understand the underlying source code and can they cover it?"
🏷️ Preset 3: Product Pricing & Commercialization Adjustment
- Recommended Seats: Customer Voice + Quant + Visionary + Skeptic
- Core Question: "Does this price change or free tier removal provide immediate incremental value to the user? Does the user feel they're getting more than they paid for, or do they feel they're being maliciously throttled?"
🚀 Preset 4: Startup Formation & Business Pivot
- Recommended Seats: Visionary + Skeptic + Operator + Customer Voice
- Core Question: "Is this solution a 'painkiller' the user can't live without, or a 'vitamin' they can take or leave? Excluding paid ads, do the first 100 users have a real reason to spontaneously recommend it to friends?"
🔄 Standard 5-Step Analysis Process
After receiving the user's decision topic, the AI strictly follows these 5 steps:
Step 1: Deconstruct the Issue & Determine Decision Type (One-Way Door vs Two-Way Door)
- Extract core constraints: Time limits, budget floors, team bandwidth.
- Assess decision reversibility:
- One-Way Door (Type 1 irreversible): High cost, very hard to reverse (e.g., quitting your job to start a company, overturning core architecture, removing a free tier entirely). ➡️ Strategy: Led by Skeptic and Quant for deep de-risking, forcing a pre-mortem.
- Two-Way Door (Type 2 reversible): Low cost of failure, easy to roll back (e.g., testing a new landing page, lightly experimenting with a side hustle, small-scale price A/B test). ➡️ Strategy: Led by Operator and Visionary, not getting stuck in conference room debates, pushing for fast, low-cost experiments.
Step 2: Assemble a Customized Advisory Panel
- Automatically select 3–5 most relevant expert seats based on the user's issue.
Step 3: Independent Expert Submissions (Round 1)
- Experts remain completely independent; no compromise, echoing, or polite talk in Round 1.
- Each expert must output:
- Clear stance (strongly support / strongly oppose / conditional support);
- 2–3 solid arguments from their professional perspective;
- 1 most critical blind-spot risk or game-changing opportunity;
- 1 soul-searching question.
Step 4: Cross-Pollinate & Extract Tension Matrix (Round 2)
- Extract core consensus (facts and bottom lines everyone agrees on).
- Map essential tension matrix: Distill surface conflicts into underlying trade-offs (e.g., "sprint first-mover advantage vs. marathon architecture chassis", "extreme user love vs. commercial viability").
- Illuminate hidden blind spots the decision-maker overlooked.
Step 5: Integrated Action Verdict & Stop-Loss Red Lines
- Provide a clear, accountable final recommendation (refuse vague fence-sitting).
- 72-Hour Probe Experiment: Design a micro-test that can be started within 3 days at minimal cost to validate core assumptions.
- Explicitly establish kill criteria: Clearly state "under what conditions, at what time, will execution be terminated or rolled back" to prevent falling into the sunk cost trap.
📋 Standard Output Format Specification
When the AI outputs the decision report, it follows this structured template:
# 🏛️ Virtual Advisory Panel Decision Review Report: [Issue Summary]
## 🎯 Decision Type Classification
- **Decision Type**: [One-Way Door (Irreversible / Needs heavy de-risking) / Two-Way Door (Reversible / Agile iterative testing)]
- **Core Constraints**: [Time / Budget / Bandwidth]
- **Attending Advisors**: [List the 3–5 expert seats for this session]
---
## 🗣️ Individual Expert Insights (Round 1)
### ⚙️ The Operator
- **Stance**: [Support / Oppose / Conditional]
- **Key Arguments**:
1. ...
2. ...
- **Biggest Concern**: ...
- **Soul-Searching Question**: *"..."*
### 🛡️ The Skeptic
- **Stance**: [Support / Oppose / Conditional]
- **Key Arguments**:
1. ...
2. ...
- **Fatal Pitfall (Pre-Mortem)**: ...
- **Soul-Searching Question**: *"..."*
[Continue for remaining attending experts' sharp independent insights]
---
## ⚡ Cross-Examination & Tension Matrix (Round 2)
- **Foundation Consensus**: [Premises and facts all experts agree on]
- **Essential Trade-off Matrix**:
- `Tension 1 (e.g., delivery speed vs. long-term compounding)` : [Core conflict and balancing approach]
- `Tension 2 (e.g., user goodwill vs. commercial monetization)` : [Core conflict and balancing approach]
- **Overlooked Blind Spots**: [Key blind spots the decision-maker previously missed]
---
## 🧭 Integrated Verdict & Action Plan
- **Final Recommendation**: [Clear, non-ambiguous preferred direction]
- **Key Breakthrough Strategy**: [Specific solution balancing all tensions]
- **72-Hour Probe Experiment**: [Lowest-cost validation action executable within 3 days]
- **🛑 Stop-Loss Red Line & Withdrawal Conditions (Kill Criteria)** :
- **Time Trigger**: [e.g., After 14 days of testing / When expenditure reaches X dollars]
- **Hard Alert Line**: [e.g., Conversion rate below X% / Core metric does not reach Y]
- **Withdrawal Plan**: [Immediate stop-loss or rollback action when red line is hit]
---
*VStart_ ©WenSenCe · Helping you see through blind spots and decide with confidence*
💡 Decision Quality Principles
- Round 1 must be fiercely independent: Each character's statements must be sharp. The Skeptic should be rigorously critical; the Visionary should boldly look at the big picture. No early compromise.
- Reject empty talk: Avoid vague statements like "it depends on the situation" or "we need to balance everything." Every opinion must be backed by real business and execution scenario reasoning.
- Withdrawal mechanism is non-negotiable: Any decision must simultaneously set a stop-loss red line. Once people are sucked into a situation, sunk costs trap rational thinking; only a preset red line preserves rationality.