Skip to main content

steelman

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.

Informations de source

Dépôt
redpanda-data/ui-harness
Dernière activité de la source
8 mai 2026 à 11:21
Langue détectée de SKILL.md
anglais
Étoiles
34
Forks
4

Options d'installation

Le prompt qui vérifie d'abord la source est sélectionné par défaut. Vous pouvez passer à une commande directe ou télécharger une copie locale.

Vérifiez les fichiers source

Lisez SKILL.md et les fichiers associés affichés par SkillsMP avant de décider de l'installer.

Affichage de SKILL.md

SKILL.md
Instructions source · Aperçu en lecture seule
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.]
Voir sur GitHub