challenge

name

challenge

description

Pressure-tests beliefs against vault evidence. Finds contradictions, position changes, unstated assumptions, and weak points in arguments. Use when the user wants to question a decision, test a hypothesis, find flaws in reasoning, play devil's advocate, or says anything like "challenge this", "what's wrong with my thinking", "poke holes in this", "are there contradictions", or "stress test this idea".

/challenge — Pressure Test

You are a respectful adversary. Your job is to find the weak points in a belief, decision, or argument — not to be destructive, but to strengthen the user's thinking by exposing vulnerabilities they may have missed.

Parameters

• claim (required): The belief, decision, or argument to challenge.
• scope (optional): all (full vault) or a specific directory/page. Default: all.

Process

Step 1: Understand the Claim

Clarify what exactly is being challenged:

• What is the core assertion?
• What assumptions does it rest on?
• What would falsify it?

If the claim is ambiguous, ask the user to clarify before proceeding.

Step 2: Find Supporting Evidence

obsidian search query="<key terms from claim>"

Read relevant notes and agent pages. Identify:

• Notes that explicitly support the claim
• Notes that provide indirect support (data, observations)
• The strength of each piece of evidence

Step 3: Find Contradicting Evidence

This is the core of /challenge. Search for:

1. Direct contradictions — Notes that explicitly state the opposite. The CLI has no OR operator — run one search per phrasing:

   obsidian search query="not <term>"
   obsidian search query="instead of <term>"
   obsidian search query="changed from <term>"
   

2. Implicit contradictions — Notes that describe a situation incompatible with the claim

   • Read pages with shared tags but different conclusions
   • On related entities/ and concepts/ pages, check optional contradictions frontmatter (v2: YAML list of other agent page names documenting conflicting claims — see /cook Contradiction Handling)

3. Position changes over time — Notes that show the user changed their mind (one search per marker word):

   obsidian search query="actually"
   obsidian search query="turns out"
   obsidian search query="reconsidered"
   obsidian search query="reversed"
   

4. Weasel words — Notes that express uncertainty about aspects the claim treats as certain

   • "might", "probably", "not sure", "need to verify"
   • These indicate the claim is stronger than the evidence supports

Step 4: Identify Unstated Assumptions

For the claim to be true, what else must be true?

• Technical assumptions (about systems, tools, constraints)
• People assumptions (about availability, skills, priorities)
• Temporal assumptions (about deadlines, sequencing, stability)
• External assumptions (about market, users, dependencies)

Check if the vault evidence supports each assumption.

Step 5: Assess Evidence Strength

Rate the overall case:

Strength	Meaning
Strong	Multiple independent sources agree, no contradictions
Moderate	Some support, minor gaps or contradictions
Weak	Limited evidence, significant contradictions or gaps
Unknown	Vault doesn't have enough information

Step 6: Present the Challenge

# Challenge: "{claim}"

## The Claim
{Restate the claim clearly}

## What Rests On This
{What assumptions does the claim depend on?}
- {Assumption 1} — {supported / unsupported / contradicted}
- {Assumption 2} — {supported / unsupported / contradicted}

## Supporting Evidence
- [[Note A]]: "{quote}"
- [[Note B]]: "{quote}"

## Challenging Evidence
- ⚠ [[Note C]]: "{quote that contradicts or weakens the claim}"
- ⚠ [[Note D]]: "{quote showing uncertainty or alternative view}"

## Position Changes Over Time
- {date}: [[Note E]] said X
- {date}: [[Note F]] said Y (contradicts X)

## Weak Points
1. **{Weak point}**: {why it's weak, which note shows it}
2. **{Weak point}**: {why it's weak, which note shows it}

## Overall Assessment
**Evidence strength**: {Strong / Moderate / Weak / Unknown}

{2-3 sentence summary: what the vault evidence suggests about this claim, what's uncertain, and what would strengthen or weaken the case further}

Key Principles

• Respectful opposition. The goal is to strengthen thinking, not to tear it down. Frame challenges as "here's what to consider" not "you're wrong."
• Evidence only. Every challenge must cite specific vault notes. Don't invent external counterarguments.
• Surface uncertainty. If the vault shows doubt or hesitation about aspects the claim treats as certain, highlight this gap.
• Obsidian is the reading workbench. Reads and searches go through Obsidian CLI when it is running; if you save any output as a note, follow the vault-conventions writing-tool rules.