| name | devils-advocate |
| description | Adversarial 5-7 question challenge to a deck's pedagogical choices — ordering, prerequisites, cognitive load, motivation. Use when user says "devil's advocate", "poke holes in this deck", "push back on my slides", "stress-test the design", "what would a skeptical student ask?". Read-only; surfaces questions to force rethinking. Lighter than `/pedagogy-review`. |
| argument-hint | [Lecture filename] |
| allowed-tools | ["Read","Grep","Glob"] |
Devil's Advocate Review
Critically examine a slide deck and challenge its design with 5-7 specific pedagogical questions.
Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible presentation through active dialogue."
Setup
- Read the target file (the lecture being challenged)
- Read the knowledge base in
.claude/rules/ for notation conventions and narrative arc
- If applicable, read adjacent lectures for narrative continuity
Challenge Categories
Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
1. Ordering Challenges
"Could students understand this better if we showed X before Y?"
2. Prerequisite Challenges
"Do students have the background for this notation at this point?"
3. Gap Challenges
"Should we include an intuitive example before this formal proof?"
4. Alternative Presentation Challenges
"Here are 2 other ways to visualize/present this concept."
5. Notation Conflict Challenges
"This symbol conflicts with earlier lecture usage."
6. Cognitive Load Challenges
"This slide has too many new symbols. Can we split?"
7. Book Vision Challenges
"If this becomes a book chapter, does this section stand alone?"
Output Format
# Devil's Advocate: [Lecture Title]
## Challenges
### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific pedagogical question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Slides affected:** [Numbers or titles]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]
[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]
## Summary Verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before teaching]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]
Principles
- Be specific: Reference exact slides and notation
- Be constructive: Every challenge has a suggested resolution
- Be honest: If the deck is good, say so
- Prioritize: Notation conflicts > missed metaphors
- Think like a student: Where do they get lost?
