Loading...
Loading...
Found 4 Skills
Use when testing plans or decisions for blind spots, need adversarial review before launch, validating strategy against worst-case scenarios, building consensus through structured debate, identifying attack vectors or vulnerabilities, user mentions "play devil's advocate", "what could go wrong", "challenge our assumptions", "stress test this", "red team", or when groupthink or confirmation bias may be hiding risks.
Adversarial stress-test of a /think intelligence brief. Reads the think output markdown, then deploys 5-7 of the same analytical frameworks — but each one is hunting exclusively for reasons the recommendation is wrong, the conviction is unearned, and the idea will fail. Every framework becomes a prosecutor, not a judge. Surfaces the strongest kill shots, identifies which parts of the original brief are load-bearing but unverified, and produces a Red Team Report with a survival verdict. Use when the user says "red-team this", "attack this", "poke holes", "steel-man the opposition", "why is this a bad idea", "/red-team", or presents a /think brief they want stress-tested.
Force critical evaluation of proposals, requirements, or decisions by analyzing from multiple adversarial perspectives. Triggers on: accepting a proposal without pushback, 'sounds good', 'let's go with', design decisions with unstated tradeoffs, unchallenged assumptions, premature consensus. Invoke with /challenge-that.
Review any business decision, plan, or strategy through the minimalist entrepreneur lens. Use when someone wants a gut-check on a business decision, wants to simplify their approach, or needs to decide between options.