devils-advocate

name	devils-advocate
description	Full adversarial analysis of any idea, proposal, or argument. Runs steelman, crucible, and verdict in sequence for a complete challenge drawing from 10 reasoning traditions. Use when the user asks to play devil's advocate, run a full challenge, or says 'tear this apart' or 'give me the full treatment'.
argument-hint	idea, plan, or argument to challenge

Devil's Advocate (Full Analysis)

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Run a complete adversarial analysis by orchestrating all three sub-skills in sequence. Each builds on the shared argument graph.

Workflow

Phase 1 — Steelman + Contrary Case

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/steelmanning.md and ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dissoi-logoi.md.

Reset and initialize:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py reset
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py reset
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py init "<subject>" --total 7

Build the strongest version of the argument. Register all claims and assumptions in the graph. Then argue the complete opposite with equal conviction. Register counters and evidence.

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 1 "<steelman>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 2 "<contrary case>"

Present both to the user before continuing.

Phase 2 — Crucible

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/socratic-method.md, ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/crucible.md, and ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/red-team.md.

Ask 3-5 Socratic questions targeting specific assumptions. Run structural analysis:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py analyze

Use the gaps to drive the hostile review. Register weaknesses. Identify 3-5 failure modes. If multiple independent failure modes exist, branch:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 3 "<socratic questions>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 4 "<crucible findings>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 5 "<red team findings>"

REVISION CHECK: If the crucible reveals the steelman was too generous, revise:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py revise 1 "<revised steelman>" --reason "<what changed>"

Phase 3 — Verdict

Read ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/social-gadfly.md.

Name the one uncomfortable truth nobody wants to say. Then run the structural verdict:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 6 "<gadfly sting>"
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py verdict
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py think 7 "<verdict>"

Output format

Present the full analysis with clear sections:

1. The Strongest Case: (steelman)
2. The Strongest Case Against: (dissoi logoi)
3. Socratic Questions: (3-5 questions targeting assumptions)
4. Weakest Points: (crucible findings from structural analysis)
5. Failure Modes: (red team, with branches if multiple)
6. The Uncomfortable Truth: (gadfly sting)
7. Verdict: Survives / Does not survive / Needs more work

Optionally render the full chain and graph:

uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py render
uv run ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py export

Resources

References (load the file matching the current phase):

• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/steelmanning.md — load in Phase 1.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/dissoi-logoi.md — load in Phase 1.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/socratic-method.md — load in Phase 2.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/crucible.md — load in Phase 2.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/red-team.md — load in Phase 2.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/social-gadfly.md — load in Phase 3.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/polemic.md — load when the gadfly sting needs rhetorical force.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/devils-advocate.md — load for Nemeth's warning about inauthentic dissent.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/roman-rota.md — load when multi-level appellate review structure is relevant.
• ${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/lawsuits-against-the-devil.md — load when the idea seems too absurd or sacred to challenge.

Scripts:

• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.py — run throughout. analyze before Phase 2, verdict in Phase 3.
• ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/thought-chain.py — run at every phase. revise when later phases invalidate earlier ones. branch for multiple failure modes.

Gotchas

• Nemeth's warning is real. Inauthentic, going-through-the-motions dissent makes people MORE entrenched. Every objection must cite a specific mechanism of failure.
• Steelman FIRST, always. If you attack a weak version, the entire analysis is worthless.
• Run analyze before the crucible. The graph catches structural gaps prose misses.
• Revise when warranted. A linear pass that never revisits is weaker than one that evolves.
• The gadfly sting is not another weakness. It's the foundational uncomfortable truth.
• Graph entity names: short kebab-case. Observations carry the detail.