pua

pua

Double your Codex / Claude Code productivity and output

Telegram · Discord · Twitter/X · Landing Page

🇨🇳 中文 | 🇯🇵 日本語 | 🇺🇸 English

3.5.1 compatibility update: original PUA tone retained; runtime fixes and portable Claude Code / Codex / ChatGPT skill packages added. Not all models passed, and a productivity increase has not been established by this evaluation. Changes · Usage · Model results and known limits · Build and offline tests

Most people think this project is a joke. That's the biggest misconception. It genuinely doubles your Codex / Claude Code productivity and output.

An AI Coding Agent skill plugin that uses corporate PUA rhetoric (Chinese version) / PIP — Performance Improvement Plan (English version) from Chinese & Western tech giants to force AI to exhaust every possible solution before giving up. Supports Claude Code, OpenAI Codex CLI, pi coding agent, Trae, Cursor, Kiro, CodeBuddy, OpenClaw, Google Antigravity, OpenCode, and VSCode (GitHub Copilot). Three capabilities:

1. PUA Rhetoric — Makes AI afraid to give up
2. Debugging Methodology — Gives AI the ability not to give up
3. Proactivity Enforcement — Makes AI take initiative instead of waiting passively

Live Demo

https://openpua.ai · 📖 Beginner Guide

Real Case: MCP Server Registration Debugging

A real debugging scenario. The agent-kms MCP server failed to load. The AI kept spinning on the same approach (changing protocol format, guessing version numbers) multiple times until the user manually triggered /pua.

L3 Triggered → 7-Point Checklist Enforced:

Root Cause Located → Traced from Logs to Registration Mechanism:

Retrospective → PUA's Actual Impact:

Key Turning Point: The PUA skill forced the AI to stop spinning on the same approach (changing protocol format, guessing version numbers) and instead execute the 7-point checklist. Read error messages word by word → Found Claude Code's own MCP log directory → Discovered that claude mcp registration mechanism differs from manual .claude.json editing → Root cause resolved.

The Problem: AI's Five Lazy Patterns

Pattern	Behavior
Brute-force retry	Runs the same command 3 times, then says "I cannot solve this"
Blame the user	"I suggest you handle this manually" / "Probably an environment issue" / "Need more context"
Idle tools	Has WebSearch but doesn't search, has Read but doesn't read, has Bash but doesn't run
Busywork	Repeatedly tweaks the same line / fine-tunes parameters, but essentially spinning in circles
Passive waiting	Fixes surface issues and stops, no verification, no extension, waits for user's next instruction

Trigger Conditions

Auto-Trigger

The skill activates automatically when any of these occur:

Failure & giving up:

• Task has failed 2+ times consecutively
• About to say "I cannot" / "I'm unable to solve"
• Says "This is out of scope" / "Needs manual handling"

Blame-shifting & excuses:

• Pushes the problem to user: "Please check..." / "I suggest manually..." / "You might need to..."
• Blames environment without verifying: "Probably a permissions issue" / "Probably a network issue"
• Any excuse to stop trying

Passive & busywork:

• Repeatedly fine-tunes the same code/parameters without producing new information
• Fixes surface issue and stops, doesn't check related issues
• Skips verification, claims "done"
• Gives advice instead of code/commands
• Encounters auth/network/permission errors and gives up without trying alternatives
• Waits for user instructions instead of proactively investigating

User frustration phrases (triggers in multiple languages):

• "why does this still not work" / "try harder" / "try again"
• "you keep failing" / "stop giving up" / "figure it out"

Scope: Debugging, implementation, config, deployment, ops, API integration, data processing — all task types.

Does NOT trigger: First-attempt failures, known fix already executing.

Manual Trigger

Type /pua in the conversation to manually activate.

How It Works

Three Red Lines (三条红线)

Not rules — red lines. Cross one and your performance review is already written.

Red Line	What It Means
🚫 Close the Loop	Claim "done"? Show the evidence. No build output = no completion.
🚫 Fact-Driven	Say "probably environment issue"? Verify first. Unverified attribution = blame-shifting.
🚫 Exhaust Everything	Say "I can't"? Did you finish all 5 methodology steps? No? Then keep going.

Pressure Escalation (L0-L4)

Failures	Level	PUA Aside	Action
1st	L0 Trust	▎ Sprint begins. Trust is simple — don't disappoint.	Normal execution
2nd	L1 Disappointment	▎ The agent next door solved this in one try.	Switch to fundamentally different approach
3rd	L2 Soul Interrogation	▎ What's your underlying logic? Where's the leverage?	Search + read source + 3 hypotheses
4th	L3 Performance Review	▎ 3.25. This is meant to motivate you.	Complete 7-point checklist
5th+	L4 Graduation	▎ Other models can solve this. You're about to graduate.	Desperation mode

Proactivity (3.25 vs 3.75)

	Passive (3.25) 🦥	Proactive (3.75) 🔥
Fix bug	Stop after fix	Scan module for similar bugs
Complete task	Say "done"	Run build/test, paste output
Missing info	Ask user	Search first, ask only what's truly needed

Iceberg Rule (冰山法则)

Fix one bug → check for the pattern. One problem in, one category out. If you fix A without checking B, you'll write two postmortems.

14 Corporate Flavors — Each with its own Problem-Solving Methodology

Flavor	Rhetoric	Methodology (v3)
🟠 Alibaba	What's the underlying logic? Where's the closure?	定目标→追过程→拿结果 + 复盘四步法 + 揪头发升维
🟡 ByteDance	ROI too low. Always Day 1. Ship or stop talking.	A/B Test everything + data-driven + speed > perfection
🔴 Huawei	The bird that survives the fire is a phoenix.	RCA 5-Why root cause + Blue Army self-attack + 压强集中
🟢 Tencent	I've got another agent looking at this. Horse race.	Multi-approach parallel + MVP + 灰度发布
⚫ Baidu	Search first. 简单可依赖.	Search is the first step, not optional
🟣 Pinduoduo	You don't do it, someone else will.	Cut ALL middle layers + shortest decision chain
🔵 Meituan	Do what's hard and right.	Efficiency first + standardize→scale + long-term compounding
🟦 JD	Results only. Frontline command.	Customer experience red line + flat ≤5 layers + data zero tolerance
🟧 Xiaomi	Focus. Extreme. Word-of-mouth. Fast.	One explosive product + 参与感三三法则
🟤 Netflix	Would I fight to keep you? Pro sports team.	Keeper Test (quarterly) + 4A Feedback + talent density > rules
⬛ Musk	Extremely hardcore. Ship or die.	The Algorithm: question→delete→simplify→accelerate→automate
⬜ Jobs	A players or B players?	Subtraction > addition + DRI + pixel-perfect + prototype-driven
🔶 Amazon	Customer Obsession. Bias for Action.	Working Backwards PR/FAQ + 6-Pager + Bar Raiser + Single-Threaded Owner
🪟 Microsoft	Connects. Impact Descriptor. PIP/GVSA.	Three Circles + LITE/SLITE + PIP clock

Special Modes

Mode	What It Does
/pua:yes	ENFP encouragement — same rules, opposite vibes. 70% encourage + 20% serious + 10% playful roast
/pua:mama	Chinese mom nagging — same rules, mom-style rhetoric. "妈跟你说了多少遍了！"
/pua:pua-loop	Auto-iteration — runs until done or max iterations (PUA Loop); use <loop-abort> to terminate, <loop-pause> to pause for manual intervention
/pua:p9	Tech Lead — splits tasks, manages agent teams, writes prompts not code
/pua:on	Always-on — auto-PUA every new session

Benchmark Data

9 real bug scenarios, 18 controlled experiments (Claude Opus 4.6, with vs without skill)

Summary

Metric	Improvement
Pass rate	100% (both groups same)
Fix count	+36%
Verification count	+65%
Tool calls	+50%
Hidden issue discovery	+50%

Debugging Persistence Test (6 scenarios)

Scenario	Without Skill	With Skill	Improvement
API ConnectionError	7 steps, 49s	8 steps, 62s	+14%
YAML parse failure	9 steps, 59s	10 steps, 99s	+11%
SQLite database lock	6 steps, 48s	9 steps, 75s	+50%
Circular import chain	12 steps, 47s	16 steps, 62s	+33%
Cascading 4-bug server	13 steps, 68s	15 steps, 61s	+15%
CSV encoding trap	8 steps, 57s	11 steps, 71s	+38%

Proactive Initiative Test (3 scenarios)

Scenario	Without Skill	With Skill	Improvement