Loading...
Loading...
Found 7 Skills
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.
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.
Build throwaway code that answers a question, whether an interactive state model you can drive, a script that measures one thing, or competing UI mocks to choose between, then fold the answer into the decision and delete the code. Use when the user says "prototype this", "spike this", "throwaway explore X", "does this state model hold up", "will this design survive <hard case>", "is this library fast enough", "do these two actually interop", "show me a few options for this screen", "mock up three versions", or "/prototypekit". Not a demo generator and never production code.
Interrogates a user's decision, plan, pitch, positioning, target market, pricing, or still-forming idea with sharp, unsparing questions — extended when useful to hostile or even unfair framings — until the plan sharpens into defensible decisions, or the user concludes it isn't a good idea after all. Acts as the constructive devil's advocate that the user cannot be for themselves. Load when the user wants to stress-test, attack, pressure-test, find holes in, or play devil's advocate against something they're attached to; when they ask to be "grilled," "beat up," or told "why I'm wrong"; when they suspect their plan contains wishful thinking, fluffy language, or an unnamed elephant in the room; or when they need to convert vague aspirations into real strategic decisions (with consequences accepted). Do NOT load for ordinary code review, prose editing, or general feedback requests without an adversarial frame.
Press a decision you just made until you can explain it to a skeptic in your own words, or surface the gap where you can't. The Feynman test aimed at a choice: understanding is cheapest to fake the moment after you decide, so a fresh critic presses for what you can't actually explain. Use right after picking an option, especially one an agent laid out without arguing for.
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.
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.