executive-mentor
From the author
Adversarial thinking partner that stress-tests plans, prepares board meetings, and surfaces blind spots. Use when you need plan validation, board prep, hard-decision frameworks, or pre/post-mortem failure analysis.
Install
npx skills add borghei/Claude-Skills --skill executive-mentor -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/executive-mentor/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
No download: this skill’s licence (Custom or unclear) does not let us redistribute its files. The install commands fetch them from GitHub instead.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
- Ships scripts we have not reviewedLow
Why 76
Security85
Provenance76
Maintenance100
Licence45
Adoption48
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- thought-partnerjeremylongshore/tons-of-skills-marketplaceCollaborative thinking partner for exploring ideas, challenges, and decisions. Use when the user needs to analyze ambiguity, test assumptions, or compare options. Trigger with "think through", "explore", "brainstorm", "help me figure out", or an open-ended strategy or priority question.Testing★ 2.9K
- ambiguity-stress-testlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsAdversarially stress-tests a legal text — a contract, statute, regulation, or judicial opinion — for interpretive ambiguity: it finds the seams where the people governed by it will later disagree about what it means and turns each into a concrete dispute scenario with both sides' arguments, the likely outcome, and a fix. Use it whenever someone wants to pressure-test, red-team, audit, or find weak spots, loopholes, gaps, ambiguities, or drafting problems in a legal document; whenever a drafter wants to tighten a contract, statute, regulation, or opinion before it issues; whenever a litigator wants to mine an opinion or contract for arguments; or whenever someone hands over a legal text and asks where it will be fought over or for issue-spotting. Trigger it for contract review, statutory-ambiguity analysis, judicial-opinion scope analysis, and drafting QA — even if the user never says "stress-test" or "ambiguity."Testing★ 888
- ceo-advisorcbrock84/headcountPressure-tests a decision, plan, or idea before it is committed to — surfacing the assumption it rests on, the case against it, and what would have to be true for it to work. Use this when weighing options, when a plan needs challenging before commitment, when you have already decided and want a genuine gut check, when processing meeting notes into decisions, or when competing initiatives need ranking. Distinct from `chief-executive`, which owns direction; this one interrogates a specific decision.Testing★ 2.1K
- hyperplancode-yeongyu/oh-my-openagentAdversarial multi-agent planning skill. Self-orchestrates 5 hostile category members (unspecified-low, unspecified-high, deep, ultrabrain, artistry) via team-mode for ruthless cross-critique debate, distills only the defensible insights, then MANDATORILY hands the distilled insight bundle to the `plan` agent for executable plan formalization. Use when planning needs maximum rigor and surfacing of weak assumptions, blind spots, and over-engineering. Triggers: 'hyperplan', 'hpp', '/hyperplan', 'adversarial plan', 'hostile planning', 'cross-critique plan', '하이퍼플랜', '적대적 계획', '교차 비평'.Planning★ 70.3K
- pre-motion-andrew-birdlawve-ai/awesome-legal-skillsAdversarial premortem for England & Wales civil litigation - builds the strongest version of a case, then attacks it from four angles to find where it loses before opposing counsel does. Runs an adversarial premortem on a UK litigation matter. Builds the strongest version of the case, then attacks it from four angles — procedural, substantive, evidentiary, strategic — to find where it actually loses. Returns a ranked stress-test brief: failure scenarios, evidence inconsistencies, blind spots, mitigations, and one brutal one-sentence verdict. Use before issue, before settlement negotiations, before a litigation-funder pitch, or before deciding whether to take a case.Testing★ 888
- red-teamsuboss87/FDEOpsStress-test a plan, brief or delivery claim against evidence and plausible failure modes. Use when the user asks for a red team or preparation for a consequential decision.Testing★ 947
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in