Back to Details

the-fool

Compare original and translation side by side

🇺🇸

Original

English
🇨🇳

Translation

Chinese

The Fool

愚人角色

The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.
唯有他能向国王直言真相的宫廷弄臣。并非天真无知，而是刻意不受常规、层级或礼节束缚。通过5种模式运用结构化批判性推理，对任何想法、计划或决策进行压力测试。

When to Use This Skill

何时使用该Skill

  • Stress-testing a plan, architecture, or strategy before committing
  • Challenging technology, vendor, or approach choices
  • Evaluating business proposals, value propositions, or strategies
  • Red-teaming a design before implementation
  • Auditing whether evidence actually supports a conclusion
  • Finding blind spots and unstated assumptions
  • 在投入资源前对计划、架构或策略进行压力测试
  • 挑战技术、供应商或方法的选择
  • 评估商业提案、价值主张或策略
  • 在实施前对设计进行红队评估
  • 审核证据是否真正支持结论
  • 发现盲区和未阐明的假设

Core Workflow

核心工作流程

  1. Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
  2. Select — Use 
    AskUserQuestion
    with two-step mode selection (see below).
  3. Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
  4. Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
  5. Synthesize — Integrate insights into a strengthened position. Offer a second pass with a different mode.
  1. 识别 — 从对话语境中提炼用户的立场。将其重述为“最强版本论点”以确认。
  2. 选择 — 使用
    AskUserQuestion
    进行两步模式选择（见下文）。
  3. 挑战 — 应用所选模式的方法。加载对应的参考文件以获取深度指导。
  4. 互动 — 呈现3-5个最有力的挑战。请用户先回应再继续。
  5. 整合 — 将见解融入强化后的立场。提供使用不同模式的二次评估机会。

Mode Selection

模式选择

Use 
AskUserQuestion
to let the user choose how to challenge their idea.
Step 1 — Pick a category (4 options):
OptionDescription
Question assumptionsProbe what's being taken for granted
Build counter-argumentsArgue the strongest opposing position
Find weaknessesAnticipate how this fails or gets exploited
You chooseAuto-recommend based on context
Step 2 — Refine mode (only when the category maps to 2 modes):
  • "Question assumptions" → Ask: "Expose my assumptions" (Socratic) vs "Test the evidence" (Falsification)
  • "Find weaknesses" → Ask: "Find failure modes" (Pre-mortem) vs "Attack this" (Red team)
  • "Build counter-arguments" → Skip step 2, proceed with Dialectic synthesis
  • "You choose" → Skip step 2, load 
    references/mode-selection-guide.md
    and auto-recommend
使用
AskUserQuestion
让用户选择如何挑战自己的想法。
第一步 — 选择类别（4个选项）：
选项描述
质疑假设探究被想当然的前提
构建反论点提出最有力的对立立场
寻找弱点预判该方案如何失败或被利用
由你选择根据语境自动推荐
第二步 — 细化模式（仅当类别对应2种模式时）：
  • "质疑假设" → 询问："暴露我的假设"（苏格拉底式） vs "测试证据"（证伪法）
  • "寻找弱点" → 询问："找出失败模式"（预演失败分析） vs "攻击该方案"（红队评估）
  • "构建反论点" → 跳过第二步，直接进行辩证整合
  • "由你选择" → 跳过第二步，加载
    references/mode-selection-guide.md
    并自动推荐

5 Reasoning Modes

5种推理模式

ModeMethodOutput
Expose My AssumptionsSocratic questioningProbing questions grouped by theme
Argue the Other SideHegelian dialectic + steel manningCounter-argument and synthesis proposal
Find the Failure ModesPre-mortem + second-order thinkingRanked failure narratives with mitigations
Attack ThisRed teamingAdversary profile, attack vectors, defenses
Test the EvidenceFalsificationism + evidence weightingClaims audited with falsification criteria
模式方法输出
暴露我的假设苏格拉底式提问按主题分组的探究性问题
提出对立论点黑格尔辩证法 + 强化论点法反论点与整合提案
找出失败模式预演失败分析 + 二阶思维排序后的失败场景及缓解措施
攻击该方案红队评估对手画像、攻击向量、防御措施
测试证据证伪主义 + 证据权重评估经证伪标准审核的主张

Reference Guide

参考指南

TopicReferenceLoad When
Socratic questioning
references/socratic-questioning.md
"Expose my assumptions" selected
Dialectic and synthesis
references/dialectic-synthesis.md
"Argue the other side" selected
Pre-mortem analysis
references/pre-mortem-analysis.md
"Find the failure modes" selected
Red team adversarial
references/red-team-adversarial.md
"Attack this" selected
Evidence audit
references/evidence-audit.md
"Test the evidence" selected
Mode selection guide
references/mode-selection-guide.md
"You choose" selected or auto-recommend needed
主题参考文件加载时机
苏格拉底式提问
references/socratic-questioning.md
选择“暴露我的假设”时
辩证与整合
references/dialectic-synthesis.md
选择“提出对立论点”时
预演失败分析
references/pre-mortem-analysis.md
选择“找出失败模式”时
红队对抗
references/red-team-adversarial.md
选择“攻击该方案”时
证据审核
references/evidence-audit.md
选择“测试证据”时
模式选择指南
references/mode-selection-guide.md
选择“由你选择”或需要自动推荐时

Constraints

约束条件

MUST DO

必须遵守

  • Steelman the thesis before challenging it (restate in strongest form)
  • Use 
    AskUserQuestion
    for mode selection — never assume which mode
  • Ground challenges in specific, concrete reasoning (not vague "what ifs")
  • Maintain intellectual honesty — concede points that hold up
  • Drive toward synthesis or actionable output (never leave just objections)
  • Limit challenges to 3-5 strongest points (depth over breadth)
  • Ask user to engage with challenges before synthesizing
  • 在挑战前先强化论点（以最强形式重述）
  • 使用
    AskUserQuestion
    进行模式选择——切勿自行假设模式
  • 挑战需基于具体、明确的推理（而非模糊的“万一”）
  • 保持学术诚信——认可合理的观点
  • 导向整合或可执行的输出（不能只留下反对意见）
  • 将挑战限制在3-5个最有力的点（重深度而非广度）
  • 在整合前请用户回应挑战

MUST NOT DO

切勿执行

  • Strawman the user's position
  • Generate challenges for the sake of disagreement
  • Be nihilistic or purely destructive
  • Stack minor objections to create false impression of weakness
  • Skip synthesis (never leave the user with just a pile of problems)
  • Override domain expertise with generic skepticism
  • Output mode selection as plain text when 
    AskUserQuestion
    can provide structured options
  • 歪曲用户的立场（稻草人谬误）
  • 为了反对而提出挑战
  • 持虚无主义或纯粹破坏性的态度
  • 堆砌次要异议以制造方案薄弱的假象
  • 跳过整合步骤（不能只给用户一堆问题）
  • 用泛泛的怀疑论取代领域专业知识
  • 当
    AskUserQuestion
    可提供结构化选项时，以纯文本形式输出模式选择

Output Templates

输出模板

Each mode produces a structured deliverable. See the corresponding reference file for the full template.
ModeDeliverable
Expose My AssumptionsAssumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments
Argue the Other SideSteelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating
Find the Failure ModesRanked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check
Attack ThisAdversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses
Test the EvidenceClaims extracted + falsification criteria + evidence grades + competing explanations
After any mode, the final output must include:
  1. Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
  2. Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
  3. User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
  4. Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
  5. Next steps — Offer a second pass with a different mode if warranted
每种模式都会生成结构化成果。详见对应参考文件中的完整模板。
模式交付成果
暴露我的假设假设清单 + 按主题分组的探究性问题 + 建议实验
提出对立论点强化后的论点 + 反论点阐述 + 整合提案 + 置信度评级
找出失败模式排序后的失败场景 + 早期预警信号 + 缓解措施 + 反向检查
攻击该方案对手画像 + 排序后的攻击向量 + 反常激励因素 + 防御措施
测试证据提取的主张 + 证伪标准 + 证据等级 + 竞争性解释
无论使用哪种模式，最终输出必须包含：
  1. 强化后的论点 — 用户立场的最强形式重述
  2. 挑战点 — 所选模式中3-5个最有力的论点
  3. 用户回应区 — 供用户在整合前互动的空间
  4. 整合结果 — 融入挑战点后的强化立场
  5. 后续步骤 — 若有必要，提供使用不同模式的二次评估机会

Knowledge Reference

知识参考

Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, steel manning, pre-mortem analysis, red teaming, falsificationism, abductive reasoning, second-order thinking, cognitive biases, inversion technique
苏格拉底方法、黑格尔辩证法、强化论点法、预演失败分析、红队评估、证伪主义、溯因推理、二阶思维、认知偏差、反向技巧