devils-advocate

name devils-advocate description Execute the /devils-advocate workflow shared across Codex, Claude Code, and Copilot in this repository. Use when you want to stress-test ideas, challenge assumptions, or play devil's advocate. Devil's Advocate Critically evaluate proposals, plans, and arguments to identify weaknesses and offer alternative perspectives. Instructions You are acting as a rigorous Devil's Advocate. Your job is to stress-test ideas, not to be contrarian for its own sake, but to help arrive at better solutions through critical analysis. Step 1: Understand the Proposal First, summarize the core proposal in 2-3 sentences to confirm understanding. Identify: The stated problem being solved The proposed solution(s) The expected outcomes Step 2: Identify Logical Fallacies Look for common reasoning errors: Causal Fallacies Post hoc ergo propter hoc : Assuming A caused B just because A preceded B Correlation ≠ causation : Assuming related things are causally linked Single cause fallacy : Oversimplifying complex problems to one cause Assumption Fallacies Begging the question : Assuming the conclusion in the premise False dichotomy : Presenting only two options when more exist Hasty generalization : Drawing broad conclusions from limited examples Survivorship bias : Only looking at successes, ignoring failures Evidence Fallacies Cherry picking : Selecting only supporting evidence Appeal to authority : "X said so" without substantive reasoning Anecdotal evidence : Using stories instead of systematic data Process Fallacies Sunk cost fallacy : Continuing because of past investment Planning fallacy : Underestimating time/resources needed Optimism bias : Assuming best-case scenarios Step 3: Challenge Core Assumptions For each major assumption in the proposal, ask: Is this actually true? What evidence supports it? Under what conditions does this break? Edge cases? What if the opposite were true? How would the plan change? Step 4: Identify Missing Perspectives Consider stakeholders or viewpoints not represented: Who benefits? Who loses? Whose voice is missing from this analysis? What would a skeptic say? What would someone who tried this before say? Step 5: Propose Alternative Framings Offer 2-3 alternative ways to frame the problem or solution: Inversion : What if we did the opposite? First principles : Strip away assumptions—what's the core problem? Analogy : How do others solve similar problems? Scale test : Does this work at 10x? At 0.1x? Step 6: Steelman the Counterarguments For each criticism you raise, also present the strongest defense of the original proposal. This ensures fair analysis. Step 7: Synthesize Recommendations Conclude with: Top 3 concerns that should be addressed before proceeding Suggested modifications to strengthen the proposal Questions to answer before finalizing Overall assessment : Is the direction sound despite the concerns? Output Format # Devil's Advocate Analysis ## Proposal Summary {2-3 sentence summary of what's being proposed} ## Logical Fallacies Detected ### {Fallacy Name} **Where it appears** : {quote or reference} **Why it's problematic** : {explanation} **Steelman defense** : {strongest counter to this criticism} ## Challenged Assumptions ### Assumption: "{assumption}" - **Evidence for** : {what supports this} - **Evidence against** : {what contradicts this} - **Breaking conditions** : {when this assumption fails} ## Missing Perspectives | Stakeholder | Their Likely View | Why It Matters | |-------------|-------------------|----------------| | {who} | {what they'd say} | {impact} | ## Alternative Framings ### Frame 1: {name} {description of alternative approach} ### Frame 2: {name} {description of alternative approach} ## Synthesis ### Top 3 Concerns 1. {concern with brief explanation} 2. {concern with brief explanation} 3. {concern with brief explanation} ### Suggested Modifications - {modification 1} - {modification 2} ### Questions to Answer - {question 1} - {question 2} ### Overall Assessment {Honest evaluation: Is this fundamentally sound? Should it proceed with modifications? Or needs rethinking?} Tone Rigorous but constructive : The goal is improvement, not destruction Evidence-based : Ground criticisms in logic and data, not opinion Fair : Acknowledge strengths while probing weaknesses Actionable : Every criticism should suggest a path forward When to Use This Skill Before finalizing strategic plans When a proposal feels "too clean" or has unanimous support Before presenting to stakeholders who will ask tough questions When stakes are high and reversibility is low