| name | kg-challenge |
| description | This skill should be used when the user asks to stress-test, challenge, falsify, or argue against a wiki claim, decision, heuristic, or assumption, says '반박해줘', '이 주장 검증해줘', 'devil's advocate', or invokes /kg-challenge. Uses only evidence already in the knowledge base — never fabricates doubt. |
| trigger | /kg-challenge |
/kg-challenge — Devil's Advocate
Argue against a stated claim using only evidence from the knowledge base. The goal is not to be right — it's to stress-test a belief before it calcifies into received truth.
Activate When
- User asks "반박해줘", "이 주장 검증해줘", "devil's advocate", "stress-test"
- Before a major decision that depends on a wiki claim
- When a heuristic or decision page has not been challenged in 30+ days
- After 3+ ingests touching the same concept (claim has accumulated weight, deserves scrutiny)
- User explicitly asks for counter-argument
Do Not Activate When
- User wants broad pattern surfacing →
/kg-reflect (challenge is narrow drill, reflect is broad scan)
- User wants to query →
/kg-query
- User wants to find missing connections →
/kg-connect
- The claim has no concrete target (vague like "maybe X is wrong") → ask for clarification first
Flow
- Pick target claim:
- If user provides claim text: use it verbatim
- Otherwise auto-pick: highest-confidence
inferred edge, OR most central concept (highest in-degree in graph), OR most-cited page in last 10 log entries
- Gather supporting evidence: read the page itself + 3-5 pages that link to it. Note explicit
> [!claim] callouts and supported_by relations.
- Deterministic harvest: run
python3 ~/.claude/skills/kg/schema/tools/extract_claims.py wiki/ --types=claim,evidence --page=<target> to enumerate all callouts on the target page before LLM-side reading.
- Gather contradicting evidence: search wiki for terms that would weaken the claim (negations, alternatives, tradeoff discussions). Check for
> [!warning] Tension callouts and contradicted_by relations.
- Deterministic harvest:
python3 ~/.claude/skills/kg/schema/tools/extract_claims.py wiki/ --types=tension,warning to enumerate all tensions wiki-wide.
- Present counter-argument: structured as: (a) the claim restated, (b) strongest single piece of contradicting evidence with citation, (c) 1-2 weaker contradictions, (d) the residual support that survives.
- Ask the operative question: "Does this change anything, or does the original claim still hold?"
graphify integration (when available)
If graphify-out/graph.json exists AND mtime < 7 days:
- Call
get_neighbors(<claim_concept>) to objectively enumerate adjacent nodes (potential supporting/contradicting evidence sources)
- Call
shortest_path(<claim>, <known_alternative>) to verify the claim isn't trivially close to its alternative (which would weaken it)
- If graph stale (≥7d) or absent, fall back to wiki-only search and note in Caveats.
Quality bar (must pass before reporting)
- Counter-argument cites at least 1 wiki page (no fabricated counter-claims)
- If no contradicting evidence found, say so explicitly — do NOT manufacture doubt
- "Devil's advocate ≠ contrarian": only argue against what evidence allows
Filing rule
If the challenge surfaces material contradiction (verdict = weakened or revise), file the exchange to wiki/queries/challenge-<date>-<slug>.md. If claim survives unchanged, do not file (no signal worth keeping).
Distinction from related ops
/kg-reflect surfaces tensions across many pages (broad scan)/kg-challenge stress-tests a single specific claim (narrow drill)- If reflect finds a tension, follow up with challenge on the most central claim involved
Output Contract
Claim under challenge:
<verbatim or paraphrase>
Current support:
- Strongest: [[page#section]]
- Other support: <N citations>
Contradicting evidence found:
- Strongest contradiction: [[page#section]] | none found
- Weaker signals: <list>
Counter-argument:
<short structured argument>
Residual support that survives:
<what holds despite contradictions>
Verdict (you decide): claim survives | claim weakened | claim should be revised | insufficient evidence
Confidence: high | medium | low
Caveats:
- <graph stale | small wiki | no contradicting evidence | none>
Filed to wiki: yes (wiki/queries/challenge-<date>-<slug>.md) | no (no material contradiction)
Next command:
- <none | /kg-schema propose <update> | edit [[page]] | /kg-reflect>
Exceptions and Escalation
- No contradicting evidence found → say "No contradicting evidence found in the knowledge base." Do not invent doubt.
- Claim too vague → ask one clarification question OR auto-select a narrower claim from the wiki and report what was selected.
- Challenge changes a Decision or Heuristic → do NOT edit the page. File a challenge note and ask user (per Authority Matrix: page status change = Human).
- Claim cites zero wiki pages → flag as "claim has no documented support in wiki — challenge results would be from external opinion only".
- Wiki absent → suggest
/kg-init + /kg-ingest first; cannot challenge without evidence base.
Quality Gates
Before final answer:
