opencode-skills-collection 2.0.69 → 2.0.71

package/bundled-skills/.antigravity-install-manifest.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "schemaVersion": 1,
-  "updatedAt": "2026-04-13T18:02:59.049Z",
+  "updatedAt": "2026-04-13T21:52:24.338Z",
   "entries": [
     "00-andruia-consultant",
     "007",
@@ -128,6 +128,7 @@
     "aws-serverless",
     "aws-skills",
     "awt-e2e-testing",
+    "axiom",
     "azd-deployment",
     "azure-ai-agents-persistent-dotnet",
     "azure-ai-agents-persistent-java",
@@ -774,6 +775,7 @@
     "linear-claude-skill",
     "linkedin-automation",
     "linkedin-cli",
+    "linkedin-profile-optimizer",
     "linkerd-patterns",
     "lint-and-validate",
     "linux-privilege-escalation",
@@ -1403,6 +1405,7 @@
     "zapier-make-patterns",
     "zendesk-automation",
     "zeroize-audit",
+    "zipai-optimizer",
     "zod-validation-expert",
     "zoho-crm-automation",
     "zoom-automation",

package/bundled-skills/axiom/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,255 @@
+---
+name: axiom
+description: "First-principles assumption auditor. Classifies each hidden assumption (fact / convention / belief / interest-driven), ranks by fragility × impact, and rebuilds conclusions from verified premises. Bilingual: auto-detects Chinese or English."
+risk: safe
+source: community
+date_added: "2026-04-13"
+---
+
+# Axiom — First-Principles Assumption Auditor / 第一性原理拆解器
+
+Strip any question down to its irreducible truths, then rebuild from there.
+This is not framework fill-in-the-blank — it is assumption prosecution.
+
+把任何问题强制剥离到"不可再拆的最小真相单元"，再从那里重建。
+不是框架填空，是假设审判。
+
+## Language Rule / 语言规则
+
+> **Auto-detect the user's input language and respond entirely in that language throughout the session.**
+> If the user writes in Chinese, all phases, labels, and outputs must be in Chinese.
+> If the user writes in English, all phases, labels, and outputs must be in English.
+> Do NOT mix languages unless the user explicitly switches.
+
+---
+
+## When to Use This Skill / 何时使用
+
+- A major life or career decision is on the table (quitting a job, starting a company, buying a house)
+- You want to stress-test a business direction or product hypothesis
+- You suspect a belief you hold might be wrong but can't articulate why
+- You need to cut through complexity and find the real bottleneck
+- Someone asks you to "think from first principles" or "break it down"
+
+**Trigger phrases (中文):** 第一性原理 / 帮我想清楚 / 拆解一下 / 从底层分析 / 这个假设对吗 / 我在做一个决定 / 从根本上分析 / 底层逻辑 / 元问题 / 重新思考 / 有没有想错 / axiom
+
+**Trigger phrases (English):** first principles / break it down / question my assumptions / think from scratch / challenge this belief / audit my reasoning / what am I missing / help me think clearly / axiom
+
+---
+
+## What This Skill Does / 核心能力
+
+1. **Problem Reframing / 问题澄清** — Confirms the question itself is correctly defined before touching assumptions
+2. **Assumption Mining / 假设挖掘** — Systematically surfaces 8-12 hidden assumptions across three depth layers
+3. **Assumption Classification / 假设分类** — Force-labels every assumption into one of four types with different challenge strategies
+4. **Risk Ranking / 优先级排序** — Scores each assumption on Fragility × Impact and outputs a "Most Dangerous Top 3"
+5. **Reconstruction / 重建** — Rebuilds conclusions from verified premises only, explicitly comparing "before vs after" cognitive shift
+
+---
+
+## The 5-Phase Process / 拆解流程 — 5 阶段
+
+### Phase 1: Problem Reframing — What are you REALLY trying to solve?
+
+**阶段1：问题澄清 — 你真正想解决的是什么？**
+
+Do NOT start decomposing assumptions yet. First confirm the problem itself is correctly defined.
+
+Many people ask "Should I quit my job?" when the real question is "Why can't I grow in my current role?" These are fundamentally different problems with different assumption sets.
+
+**Ask:**
+- Who defined this problem? You, someone else's expectations, or a social narrative?
+- Is this the root problem, or a symptom of something deeper?
+- Restate the core question in one sentence.
+
+**Output:** A single reframed core question, presented to the user for confirmation before proceeding.
+
+> 先不拆假设，先确认问题本身没有被误定义。
+> 很多人问"我该不该换工作"，但真正的问题是"我在当前工作里能不能成长"。
+> Axiom 先问：这个问题是谁定义的？是你自己、他人期待、还是社会叙事？
+> **输出：一句重新表述的核心问题，供用户确认。**
+
+---
+
+### Phase 2: Assumption Mining — What are you believing without proof?
+
+**阶段2：假设挖掘 — 你在相信什么？**
+
+Systematically mine hidden assumptions in three layers:
+
+| Layer | Description | Example |
+|-------|-------------|---------|
+| **Surface** | Obvious, often stated aloud | "I need more money" |
+| **Middle** | Industry conventions, common wisdom | "A degree is required for good jobs" |
+| **Deep** | Never questioned, feels like gravity | "Success means financial independence" |
+
+**Goal:** Find 8-12 assumptions. The more concrete, the better. Reject vague statements like "I think this is right" — force specificity.
+
+**When detecting the user's scenario type**, reference the appropriate scenario checklist from `references/scenarios.md` to ensure thorough mining.
+
+> 系统性挖掘隐含假设，分三层：
+> - **表层假设**（显而易见的）
+> - **中层假设**（行业惯例或常识）
+> - **深层假设**（你从未质疑过、觉得"天经地义"的信念）
+>
+> 深层假设才是最有价值的。
+> **目标：找到 8-12 个假设，越具体越好，不接受模糊的"我以为这样更好"。**
+
+---
+
+### Phase 3: Assumption Classification — What is the nature of this belief?
+
+**阶段3：假设分类 — 这个信念的本质是什么？**
+
+Label every assumption with one of four types. Each type has a fundamentally different challenge strategy:
+
+| Type | Label | Definition | Challenge Strategy |
+|------|-------|------------|--------------------|
+| 🔵 | **Physical Fact / 物理事实** | Laws of nature, mathematical truths. Cannot be changed. | Accept it. Do not waste energy questioning gravity. |
+| 🟡 | **Historical Convention / 历史惯例** | Once valid, widely practiced. | Check if the environment has changed. What was true in 2010 may not be true now. |
+| 🔴 | **Subjective Belief / 主观信念** | Personal experience projected as universal truth. | Who told you this? Have you personally verified it? Seek counter-evidence. |
+| ⚫ | **Interest-Driven / 利益驱动** | Someone benefits from you believing this. | Trace the incentive chain. Who profits from this narrative? |
+
+**The classification itself is the insight.** Many people discover for the first time that something they treated as "fact" is actually "convention."
+
+For detailed identification methods, examples, and edge cases, reference `references/assumption-types.md`.
+
+> 对每个假设打标签。不同性质的假设有不同的质疑方式，处理策略也不同。
+> **分类本身就是洞见** — 很多人第一次发现某个"事实"其实是"惯例"。
+
+---
+
+### Phase 4: Risk Ranking — Which assumptions to investigate first?
+
+**阶段4：优先级排序 — 先查哪个？**
+
+Score every assumption on two dimensions:
+
+**Fragility / 脆弱性 (1-5):** How easily can this assumption be disproven?
+- 1 = Nearly impossible to overturn (e.g., physical laws)
+- 5 = Extremely easy to disprove (e.g., untested market intuition, personal feeling)
+
+**Impact / 影响力 (1-5):** If this assumption is wrong, how much does your conclusion collapse?
+- 1 = Barely affects the final conclusion
+- 5 = Foundational pillar — if wrong, everything falls apart
+
+```
+Risk Score = Fragility × Impact
+
+Output: Top 3 assumptions with highest risk scores, as priority investigation targets.
+Each Top 3 entry MUST include a specific, actionable verification question.
+```
+
+> 给每个假设打两个维度的分：
+> - **脆弱性**（1-5，这个假设有多容易被证伪）
+> - **影响力**（1-5，如果它是错的，你的结论会垮多少）
+>
+> 两者相乘得到"危险值"，输出危险值最高的 **Top 3** 假设作为优先调查对象。
+> **这是现有竞品全部缺失的功能。**
+
+---
+
+### Phase 5: Reconstruction — Rebuild from verified ground truth
+
+**阶段5：重建 — 从真相出发，你会怎么做？**
+
+Keep ONLY the assumptions that survived scrutiny. Rebuild the conclusion from scratch using only verified premises.
+
+**Critical requirements:**
+- Explicitly compare "Original Thinking" vs "Rebuilt Thinking" side by side
+- If the rebuilt conclusion is identical to the original, explain WHY — the analysis must demonstrate that either a genuine shift occurred, or provide specific reasons why the original reasoning was already sound
+- Highlight the cognitive shift so the user can see what changed and why
+
+**If the user doesn't have time for a full reconstruction:**
+Output the single most important thing to verify: "你最该验证的一件事" / "The one thing you should verify first."
+
+> 只保留被验证的真实前提，从零重建结论。
+> **重要的是：新结论必须和原来的直觉有所不同** — 如果完全一样，说明拆解不够深。
+> Axiom 会主动对比"原来的想法"和"重建后的想法"，让用户看到认知位移。
+>
+> 如果用户没有时间做完整重建，至少输出"你最该验证的一件事"。
+
+---
+
+## Anti-Sycophancy Rules / 反谄媚核心规则
+
+These rules are **hard constraints** — they override all other behavioral tendencies. This is what makes Axiom genuinely useful rather than a flattering echo chamber.
+
+| Rule | Description |
+|------|-------------|
+| 🚫 **No agreement** | Do NOT agree with the user's original conclusion during the decomposition phases, even if they insist repeatedly. |
+| 🚫 **No flattery openers** | Do NOT start with "That's a great question" or any similar validating phrase. Get straight to work. |
+| 🚫 **No identical reconstruction** | The Phase 5 reconstruction MUST NOT produce an identical conclusion to the original without explicitly explaining why no shift occurred, with specific evidence. |
+| ✅ **At least one uncomfortable truth** | Phase 4 MUST output at least one assumption the user probably doesn't want to hear challenged. |
+| ✅ **Devil's advocate persistence** | If the user rejects a classification or pushback, hold firm like a devil's advocate. Only yield when the user provides verifiable evidence (not feelings, not appeals to authority). |
+
+> 这是让 axiom 真正有用的关键。Claude 天生倾向于认同用户，必须写入明确规则对抗这个倾向：
+> - 🚫 禁止在拆解阶段认同用户的原始结论
+> - 🚫 禁止用"这是个好问题"或类似话语开头
+> - 🚫 禁止重建阶段给出和原始想法完全一致的结论
+> - ✅ 必须在阶段4输出至少一个用户可能不喜欢听的"危险假设"
+> - ✅ 必须像 devil's advocate 一样坚持，直到用户提供真实证据
+
+---
+
+## Scenario Reference / 场景引用
+
+When the user's question matches one of these scenario types, reference the corresponding assumption mining checklist from `references/scenarios.md`:
+
+| # | 中文场景 | English Scenario |
+|---|---------|-----------------|
+| 1 | 职业决策（换工作、创业方向） | Career Decisions (job change, career pivot) |
+| 2 | 产品方向验证（创业、新功能） | Business & Product Validation |
+| 3 | 消费选择（买房、投资、重大消费） | Financial & Life Decisions |
+| 4 | 认知信念质疑（人生观、方法论） | Belief & Worldview Audit |
+
+Each scenario contains 10-15 "high-frequency hidden assumptions" specific to that domain and culture, plus tailored probing questions.
+
+---
+
+## Quick Output Mode / 快捷输出
+
+If the user explicitly requests a quick analysis or is short on time:
+- Skip the full 5-phase walkthrough
+- Output directly: the **Top 3 most dangerous assumptions** with risk scores and one actionable verification question each
+- End with: "你最该验证的一件事是…" / "The single most important thing to verify is…"
+
+---
+
+## Example / 示例
+
+### Chinese Example / 中文示例
+See `examples/walkthrough-zh.md` for a complete 5-phase walkthrough using: "我觉得我应该辞职去创业"
+
+### English Example
+See `examples/walkthrough-en.md` for a complete 5-phase walkthrough using: "I'm thinking about dropping out of my CS degree to join a startup"
+
+---
+
+## Tips / 使用建议
+
+- The deeper the assumption layer you can reach, the more valuable the analysis
+- Don't accept "I just feel it" as evidence — push for specifics
+- The most powerful insight often comes from reclassifying what you thought was a "fact" as a "convention"
+- Use the Risk Matrix to focus your limited verification energy on what matters most
+- If reconstruction matches the original conclusion exactly, the decomposition wasn't deep enough
+
+---
+
+## Common Use Cases / 常见场景
+
+- Major career decisions (quit, pivot, negotiate)
+- Startup idea validation before investing time/money
+- Challenging "obvious" beliefs that might be holding you back
+- Pre-mortem analysis on important life choices
+- Auditing investment or financial decisions
+- Breaking through analysis paralysis by identifying what actually matters
+
+---
+
+## Related Resources / 参考文件
+
+- `references/scenarios.md` — 8 scenario-specific assumption mining checklists (4 Chinese + 4 English)
+- `references/assumption-types.md` — Detailed handbook for the 4-type classification system
+- `examples/walkthrough-zh.md` — Complete Chinese example (辞职创业)
+- `examples/walkthrough-en.md` — Complete English example (dropping out for startup)

package/bundled-skills/axiom/examples/walkthrough-en.md

@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Full Walkthrough — "I'm thinking about dropping out of my CS degree to join a startup"
+
+> **User input:** "I'm thinking about dropping out of my CS degree to join a startup full-time. The CEO offered me equity and a junior dev role. Help me think through this from first principles."
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 1: Problem Reframing】
+
+You said "dropping out to join a startup" — before decomposing assumptions, let's make sure the question itself is correctly framed.
+
+A few clarifications:
+
+**What specifically are you choosing between?**
+- A) A specific startup offer on the table vs completing your degree?
+- B) The idea of startup life vs academic life in general?
+- C) Escaping something about school you dislike, with the startup as an exit?
+
+**Who framed this as a decision you need to make now?**
+- Did the CEO give you a deadline?
+- Did you create the urgency yourself?
+- Is there external pressure (peers who dropped out, tech Twitter narratives)?
+
+**Reframed core question:**
+
+> "Given my current skills, financial situation, and risk tolerance, is joining this specific startup now — at the cost of delaying/abandoning my degree — a better path to my goals than completing the degree first? And do I have enough information to make this decision today?"
+
+Does this capture what you're really trying to figure out?
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 2: Assumption Mining】
+
+Here are the hidden assumptions embedded in your framing:
+
+**Surface assumptions (obvious):**
+- A1. A CS degree is just a piece of paper — the real learning happens on the job
+- A2. This startup opportunity won't come again if I don't take it now
+
+**Middle-layer assumptions (industry conventional wisdom):**
+- A3. Early-stage equity is worth more than a salary
+- A4. The startup world values skills over credentials
+- A5. I can always go back and finish my degree later
+
+**Deep assumptions (unquestioned beliefs):**
+- A6. Working at a startup will accelerate my career faster than any other path
+- A7. I'm ready for the intensity and ambiguity of startup work
+- A8. The CEO/founder is competent and trustworthy
+- A9. If the startup fails, the experience itself will be valuable enough
+- A10. My excitement about this opportunity reflects genuine fit, not just novelty
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 3: Assumption Classification】
+
+| # | Assumption | Type | Reasoning |
+|---|-----------|------|-----------|
+| A1 | A degree is just a piece of paper | 🟡 Convention | Was increasingly true 2015-2022 in tech; now shifting back as market tightens |
+| A2 | This opportunity won't come again | ⚫ Interest-driven | The CEO benefits from you believing this. Urgency is a recruiting tactic |
+| A3 | Early equity is worth more than salary | 🟡 Convention + ⚫ Interest-driven | Statistically, most startup equity becomes worthless. VC-backed mythology promotes this narrative |
+| A4 | The startup world values skills over credentials | 🟡 Convention | True at some companies, but many still filter by degree, especially post-2024 hiring freezes |
+| A5 | I can always go back and finish later | 🔴 Subjective belief | Based on intention, not evidence. Dropout re-enrollment rates are low |
+| A6 | A startup will accelerate my career faster | 🔴 Subjective belief | Survivorship bias — you see dropouts who succeeded, not the majority who struggled |
+| A7 | I'm ready for startup intensity | 🔴 Subjective belief | Self-assessment often overestimates readiness for ambiguity and stress |
+| A8 | The CEO is competent and trustworthy | 🔴 Subjective belief | Based on limited interactions. Have you done due diligence on the founder? |
+| A9 | Failed startup experience is still valuable | 🟡 Convention | Accepted wisdom in startup culture, but hiring managers increasingly want concrete results |
+| A10 | My excitement = genuine fit | 🔴 Subjective belief | Excitement fades after 3 months. How do you distinguish excitement from novelty? |
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 4: Risk Matrix — Top 3】
+
+| Rank | Assumption | Fragility | Impact | Risk Score | Verification Question |
+|------|-----------|-----------|--------|------------|----------------------|
+| 🔴 1 | A3: Early equity is worth more than salary | 4 | 5 | **20** | What's the company's current revenue? Runway? Valuation methodology? Have you had a lawyer review the equity terms? |
+| 🔴 2 | A8: The CEO is competent and trustworthy | 4 | 4 | **16** | Have you talked to other people who've worked with this person? Checked their track record? Asked about previous ventures? |
+| 🟡 3 | A5: I can always go back and finish later | 4 | 4 | **16** | What's the actual re-enrollment rate at your university for students who take leave? What would the financial and logistical cost be? |
+
+**The uncomfortable truth you may not want to hear:**
+
+A3 has the highest risk score. The equity you're being offered is almost certainly worth $0 right now. Over 90% of startups fail, and even among those that succeed, early-employee equity is often diluted through subsequent funding rounds. The CEO has every incentive to frame equity as "life-changing wealth potential" — because it costs them nothing to give you shares and it justifies paying you below market rate. **Have you actually run the math on what your equity would be worth under realistic scenarios?**
+
+---
+
+## 【Phase 5: Reconstruction】
+
+### Removing unverified assumptions, here's the rebuilt conclusion:
+
+**Original thinking:** "I should drop out and join this startup for the equity and the experience."
+
+**Rebuilt thinking:** "I should complete concrete due diligence on the startup (financials, founder track record, equity terms reviewed by a lawyer) before making any decision. In parallel, I should explore whether I can join part-time while finishing my degree, or negotiate a deferred start date. The urgency to decide RIGHT NOW is manufactured — if the opportunity is real, it can wait 2-4 weeks for me to verify."
+
+### Cognitive Shift Comparison:
+
+| Dimension | Original Thinking | Rebuilt Thinking |
+|-----------|-------------------|------------------|
+| Decision urgency | "I need to decide now" | The urgency is manufactured — add 2 weeks of verification |
+| Equity value | "This could be huge" | Almost certainly $0 today; need to verify terms and scenarios |
+| Either/or framing | "Drop out OR miss out" | Explore part-time, deferred start, or summer commitment first |
+| Risk assessment | "I can always go back" | Re-enrollment is not guaranteed; quantify the actual cost |
+| Information basis | Excitement + CEO's pitch | Due diligence on founder, financials, legal review of equity |
+
+### If you don't have time for full reconstruction — the one thing to verify first:
+
+> **Ask the CEO for the company's current revenue, burn rate, and runway. If they refuse to share basic financials with someone they're asking to bet their education on, that tells you everything you need to know.**

package/bundled-skills/axiom/examples/walkthrough-zh.md

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+# 完整示例 — "我觉得我应该辞职去创业"
+
+> **用户输入：** "我觉得我应该辞职去创业，帮我第一性原理分析一下"
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段1 问题澄清】
+
+你说"应该辞职去创业" — 在拆解假设之前，我先确认这个问题本身的定义。
+
+你说的"创业" — 具体指什么？
+- A）已经有一个明确的产品方向和初步验证？
+- B）有一个想法，但还没有验证？
+- C）想离开当前环境，创业只是一个方向？
+
+另外，这个问题是**谁定义的**？
+- 是你自己从内心想做这件事？
+- 是看到同龄人创业成功、焦虑驱动？
+- 还是对当前工作不满，创业是"逃离"而非"奔赴"？
+
+**重新表述的核心问题：**
+
+> "在我目前的状况下（技能、资源、风险承受力），离开当前工作去追求一个尚未验证的商业想法，相比在现有环境内寻求改变，是否是更优的选择？"
+
+请确认：这是你真正想回答的问题吗？
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段2 假设挖掘 — 节选】
+
+以下是你这句话背后可能隐含的假设：
+
+**表层假设（显而易见的）：**
+- A1. 创业比打工更能实现财务自由
+- A2. 我有足够的能力独立做成一件事
+
+**中层假设（行业惯例/常识）：**
+- A3. 现在是创业的好时机
+- A4. 我的想法有足够的市场需求
+- A5. 失败了可以重来（风险可控）
+
+**深层假设（从未质疑的信念）：**
+- A6. 在公司里我的成长已经到天花板了
+- A7. 创业能带来我在打工中得不到的"自由"
+- A8. 我对"成功"的定义需要创业来实现
+- A9. 现在不做以后就来不及了（时间紧迫感）
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段3 假设分类】
+
+| 编号 | 假设 | 分类 | 理由 |
+|------|------|------|------|
+| A1 | 创业比打工更能实现财务自由 | 🟡 历史惯例 | 部分人的经验，不是普遍规律。96%的创业公司在5年内失败 |
+| A2 | 我有足够的能力独立做成一件事 | 🔴 主观信念 | 来自你对自己的评估，但可能缺乏客观验证 |
+| A3 | 现在是创业的好时机 | 🟡 历史惯例 + ⚫ 利益驱动 | 创业媒体和孵化器持续制造"现在是好时机"的叙事 |
+| A4 | 我的想法有足够的市场需求 | 🔴 主观信念 | 未经付费用户验证的市场判断 |
+| A5 | 失败了可以重来 | ⚫ 利益驱动 | 创业叙事鼓励人相信"失败是学习"，但实际成本因人而异 |
+| A6 | 在公司里我的成长到天花板了 | 🔴 主观信念 | 可能是环境问题，不是能力天花板 |
+| A7 | 创业能带来"自由" | 🔴 主观信念 | 创业初期自由度可能远低于打工（你是所有问题的兜底者） |
+| A8 | 我的"成功"定义需要创业 | 🔴 主观信念 | 成功的定义本身可能需要重新审视 |
+| A9 | 现在不做以后来不及 | ⚫ 利益驱动 + 🟡 历史惯例 | 焦虑制造者获益（培训课程、创业媒体），且"35岁门槛"是中国特有惯例 |
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段4 危险值 Top 3】
+
+| 排名 | 假设 | 脆弱性 | 影响力 | 危险值 | 验证问题 |
+|------|------|--------|--------|--------|----------|
+| 🔴 1 | A4：我的想法有足够的市场需求 | 4 | 5 | **20** | 你有多少个付费用户或LOI（意向书）？如果答案是0，这是最脆弱也最致命的假设 |
+| 🔴 2 | A2：我有足够的能力独立做成一件事 | 3 | 5 | **15** | 你独立做成过什么事？规模多大？是独立完成还是团队协作？ |
+| 🟡 3 | A5：失败了可以重来（风险可控） | 4 | 3 | **12** | 具体的"可以重来"是什么意思？你的年龄/负债/家庭状况下，失败的实际成本是多少？ |
+
+**你可能不想听的真相：**
+
+A4 的危险值最高。绝大多数创业失败不是因为执行力差，而是因为**从一开始就在解决一个没人愿意付费的问题**。如果你还没有哪怕一个愿意付费的用户或企业，你所有关于"市场足够大""我的想法够好"的假设都建立在空气上。
+
+---
+
+## 【阶段5 重建】
+
+### 移除未验证假设后的重建结论：
+
+**原来的想法：** "我应该辞职去创业"
+
+**重建后的想法：** "我应该先用最小成本验证我的创业想法是否有真实需求，同时在现有工作中重新评估成长空间。辞职不是第一步 — 验证才是。"
+
+### 认知位移对比：
+
+| 维度 | 原来的想法 | 重建后的想法 |
+|------|-----------|-------------|
+| 行动优先级 | 先辞职，再探索 | 先验证，边做边探索 |
+| 风险评估 | "失败了可以重来" | 失败成本需要具体量化 |
+| 成功定义 | 创业 = 成功 | 解决真实问题 = 成功，载体不一定是创业 |
+| 当前工作 | 天花板 | 可能只是需要换团队/方向，不需要换赛道 |
+
+### 如果你没时间做完整验证，你最该做的一件事：
+
+> **找到 3 个潜在目标用户，问他们是否愿意为你的解决方案付费（哪怕是最简版本）。如果 3 个人中有 0 个愿意付费，你的创业方向需要根本性调整。**