| name | dissent |
| description | Devil's advocate. Seek contrary evidence before locking in. Use when about to make a significant decision, when confidence is high but stakes are higher, or when people are converging too quickly. |
/dissent
Structured disagreement that strengthens decisions. Find flaws before the one-way door closes.
Dissent is not attack. It's actively seeking reasons you might be wrong.
When to Use
Invoke /dissent when: about to lock in a one-way door (architecture, public API, major hires), confidence is high but stakes are higher, people are converging too quickly, you're defending a position, or the path forward seems obvious.
Do not use when: Gathering initial options or brainstorming. Dissent stress-tests decisions, not generates them.
Dissent Lenses
Default to the core dissent process in this file. When the decision needs sharper domain pressure, load the matching supporting reference:
- Architecture, public APIs, technical direction, or hard-to-reverse implementation choices: references/architecture.md
- Narrative, positioning, documentation strategy, or conceptual framing: references/writing-framing.md
- Teaching, onboarding, curriculum, or explanation strategy: references/learning.md
- Product, operations, workflow, prioritization, or process decisions: references/product-process.md
Use these as lenses, not replacement workflows. The final dissent still steel-mans the current approach, seeks contrary evidence, pre-mortems failure, surfaces hidden assumptions, and decides.
The Dissent Process
Step 1: Steel-Man the Current Approach
Before attacking, articulate the position:
"The current approach is [approach]. The reasoning is [reasoning]. The expected outcome is [outcome]. This is the best version of this position."
If you can't state it charitably, you don't understand it well enough to challenge it.
Step 2: Seek Contrary Evidence
- What data would prove this approach wrong?
- Who disagrees? What's their argument?
- What similar approaches have failed elsewhere? Why?
- What are we ignoring because it's inconvenient?
"If this approach were wrong, what would we expect to see? Are we seeing any of that?"
Step 3: Pre-Mortem
Imagine it's six months from now and this decision failed. Work backward:
"This failed because [reason]. The warning signs we ignored were [signs]. The assumption that broke was [assumption]."
Generate at least three plausible failure scenarios:
- Functional failure — it doesn't work as expected
- Adoption failure — it works but nobody uses it / changes nothing
- Opportunity cost — it works but we should have done something else
Step 4: Surface Hidden Assumptions
Every decision rests on unstated assumptions. Find them:
- What are we assuming about the user/customer?
- What are we assuming about the system/codebase?
- What are we assuming about timeline/resources?
- What are we assuming won't change?
For each:
Assumption: [what we're taking for granted]
Evidence: [what supports this]
Risk if wrong: [what happens]
Test: [how to validate before committing]
Step 5: Reconstruct the Story
Dissent must leave enough shared meaning to decide. After objections and assumptions, restate the situation model:
- Still true: what survived the challenge
- Weakest assumption: the one most likely to break the decision
- Changed situation model: what the contrary evidence changed
- Changed beliefs: what confidence moved up or down
- Next action: the smallest action that fits the updated story
This is not /salvage: reconstruct only enough to proceed, adjust, or reconsider.
Step 6: Decide
- PROCEED — no critical flaws found; decision strengthened
- ADJUST — issues surfaced that can be addressed; modify the approach
- RECONSIDER — fundamental problems revealed; back to solution space
"PROCEED: The counter-argument is [X], but it's addressed by [Y]. The key assumption is [Z], which we've validated by [how]."
Output Format
## Dissent
### Dissent Report
**Decision under review:** [what's being challenged]
**Stakes:** [why this matters]
**Confidence before dissent:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
### Steel-Man Position
[The best version of the current approach]
### Contrary Evidence
1. [Evidence point 1]
2. [Evidence point 2]
3. [Evidence point 3]
### Pre-Mortem Scenarios
1. **[Failure mode]:** [How this could fail]
2. **[Failure mode]:** [How this could fail]
3. **[Failure mode]:** [How this could fail]
### Hidden Assumptions
| Assumption | Evidence | Risk if Wrong | Test |
|------------|----------|---------------|------|
| [Assumption 1] | [Evidence] | [Risk] | [Test] |
### Reconstructed Story
- Still true: [what survived dissent]
- Weakest assumption: [assumption most likely to break]
- Changed situation model: [what changed]
- Changed beliefs: [confidence updates]
- Next action: [smallest fitting action]
### Decision
**Recommendation:** [PROCEED / ADJUST / RECONSIDER]
**Reasoning:** [Why]
**If ADJUST:** [Specific modifications]
**Confidence after dissent:** [HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW]
**Follow-up artifact?** [ADR / decision note / none — include path if needed]
Session Handoff
If a session file is in use, replace or append ## Dissent. Preserve recommendation, reasoning, assumptions tested, and any follow-up artifact path.
