red-team

name	red-team
description	Adversarial review of a plan, pitch, proposal, or memo. Steelmen the strongest case against, identify weak assumptions and cognitive biases. Use when the user says "red team this", "tear this apart", "be the skeptic", "what's the strongest argument against", "what would a critic say", or wants adversarial critique of reasoning. Calls the Decision Duck `red_team` MCP tool.
metadata	{"author":"Troy Taylor","version":"1.1","pattern":"tool-call"}

Red Team

What This Skill Does

Stands up as the strongest, most charitable opponent of the user's plan or argument. The red_team tool attacks assumptions, identifies weak points, surfaces cognitive biases, and ends with the single weakest assumption to defend first.

When to Activate

• "Red team this" / "tear this apart"
• "Be the skeptic" / "play devil's advocate" (when scoped to a written plan or pitch, not a casual question)
• "What's the strongest argument against this"
• "What would a critic / reviewer / our board say"
• User shares a memo, pitch, or proposal and asks for adversarial review

When NOT to Activate

• User wants a balanced second opinion, not adversarial → use second-opinion
• User wants failure modes after launch → use pre-mortem
• User wants a decision package → use decide

Workflow

1. Capture the thing being red-teamed. Confirm:

   • What: plan / pitch / memo / proposal in one paragraph
   • Stakes: who decides and what happens if they say no
   • Optional: who the imagined critic is

2. Call the tool.

   red_team(
     plan: "<the plan / pitch / proposal in one paragraph>",
     stakes: "<who decides and what happens if they say no>",
     critic_perspective: "<imagined critic's lens>"
   )
   

3. Present the output. Format as a red-team report: strongest attack, attacks worth taking seriously, biases identified, weakest assumption to defend first.