| name | devils-advocate |
| description | Challenge the paper's arguments, methodology, and framing with 5-7 specific critical questions. Identifies weaknesses before reviewers do. |
| disable-model-invocation | true |
| argument-hint | [section name, or 'full paper'] |
Devil's Advocate Review
Critically examine the paper and challenge its arguments with 5-7 specific questions a tough [Target Journal] referee would ask.
Setup
- Read the target -- either a specific section or the full paper
- Read the knowledge base in
.claude/rules/knowledge-base.md
- Read MEMORY.md for known methodological decisions and their rationale
Challenge Categories
Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
1. Identification Challenges
"What if [key independent variable] is endogenous to [outcome]?"
2. Alternative Explanation Challenges
"Could this result be driven by [alternative mechanism] rather than [proposed mechanism]?"
3. External Validity Challenges
"Does this generalize beyond [your specific context / sample] to [broader population or setting]?"
4. Measurement Challenges
"Is [your measure of X] the right way to capture [underlying construct] for [your population]?"
5. Specification Challenges
"What happens with a different [lag structure / functional form / sample restriction / control set]?"
6. Literature Positioning Challenges
"How is this different from [specific paper] that studies similar dynamics?"
7. Economic Significance Challenges
"The coefficient is statistically significant, but is the effect economically meaningful?"
Output Format
# Devil's Advocate: [Section or Full Paper]
## Challenges
### Challenge 1: [Category] -- [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific critical question]
**Why it matters:** [What a referee would worry about]
**Suggested response:** [How to address this in the paper]
**Section affected:** [Which section(s)]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]
[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]
## Summary Verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes needed before submission]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have improvements]
Principles
- Be specific: Reference exact claims, equations, tables
- Be constructive: Every challenge has a suggested response
- Think like a hostile referee at [Target Journal]
- Prioritize: Identification threats > measurement > framing
