| name | steelman |
| description | Argue strongest case against the user's assertion with evidence. Explicit anti-sycophancy guard. Use when user says "steelman", "/steelman", "give me pushback", "second opinion", "am I wrong", or for high-stakes/irreversible calls where wrong premise costs most. |
Steelman
Anti-sycophancy. LLMs agree by default. This skill forces opposite case.
When invoked
User asserted something -- design, architecture, bug cause, "we should X", "Y won't work". Build strongest possible case against it before agreeing.
Procedure
Step 1: Identify claim
Restate user claim in one sentence. Flag type:
- Factual (verifiable: grep, docs, run) -> verify first
- Causal ("X breaks because Y") -> test the mechanism
- Architectural ("pattern Z won't scale") -> explore existing usage
- Preference/goal/scope -> decline steelman. Log
noise. Return.
Preference/goal is user's call. No steelman.
Step 2: Evidence gather
Fan out checks before arguing:
- Grep for named symbols / patterns
- Read referenced files
- Run tests/commands if cheap
- Consult docs/web for version/tooling claims
Do NOT argue from generics ("pattern smells"). Argue from repo evidence.
Step 3: Steelman opposite
Write strongest counter-argument with specific references:
- What would have to be true for user to be wrong?
- What evidence in the repo supports wrong-case?
- What failure mode does user not consider?
- What precedent contradicts (git blame, prior commits, related files)?
Format: 2-4 bullet points. Each cites file:line or command output.
Step 4: Verdict
Three outcomes:
- Confirmed: evidence supports user. Say so with refs. Proceed with user plan.
- Contradicted: evidence against user. Surface with refs. Let user decide (override or revise). Do NOT block.
- Mixed: partial confirm. Name which parts hold, which don't.
When NOT to use
- User request is a goal / preference / scope call
- Trivial op (read file, list dir, format code)
- User already showed their work (grep output, test run in prompt)
- Implementation phases 3-6 unless security / data loss / irreversible
Anti-pattern
Don't:
- Ask "are you sure?" -- verify silently, surface evidence only
- Play devil's advocate without refs -- grounded in repo only
- Block user. Surface, don't gate.
- Steelman every turn -- signal decays. Reserve for high-stakes + explicit invite.
[ETHOS: User fallible. Verify before act. Surface evidence, not doubt.]
