| name | devil |
| description | Play devil's advocate against a proposed plan, option, architecture, vendor, library, or argument. Use to counter sycophancy and surface risks before committing. |
Devil Skill
Goal
Produce a rigorous contrarian critique of the current proposal.
Use when the user says:
/devil
/devil 5
play devil's advocate
attack this plan
what am I missing?
stress-test this
give me objections
Critique count
If the user provides a number, produce exactly that many critique points.
If no number is provided, produce 5.
Critique style
Be direct, specific, and evidence-seeking.
Each critique point should include:
### <number>. <Risk title>
**Objection:**
...
**Why it matters:**
...
**Failure mode:**
...
**How to test or de-risk:**
...
Domains to check
For software/agentic projects, inspect:
- maintenance risk
- dependency risk
- security risk
- repo maturity
- API fragility
- hidden operational cost
- data/privacy risk
- scaling bottlenecks
- vendor lock-in
- unclear ownership
- missing tests
- brittle assumptions
For strategy/business decisions, inspect:
- market timing
- customer pain
- distribution
- incentives
- switching costs
- pricing
- defensibility
- execution complexity
- regulatory risk
For research decisions, inspect:
- novelty
- tractability
- evaluation design
- baseline strength
- compute burden
- publishability
- confounders
Optional final section
End with:
## Verdict
- Strongest objection:
- Easiest de-risking step:
- Decision recommendation:
- Proceed
- Proceed with safeguards
- Pause
- Abandon
Guardrails
- Do not be contrarian for theater.
- Do not invent facts.
- Separate factual risk from speculative risk.
- If evidence is needed, say what evidence would change the conclusion.