thinking-steel-manning

# Steel-Manning **Core rule:** Engage the best form of the opposing case, not a weak one. If your position survives that, reaffirm; if not, update. ## When to Use - About to reject a proposal, design, or alternative approach. - Inclined to agree with the user/plan and risk sycophancy — construct the best case *against* first. - Design review, architecture debate, or conflict where trade-offs are real. - Validating your own preferred decision before locking it (strongest-countercase check). ## When NOT to Use - Settled fact, security anti-pattern, or violated hard requirement — correct it; do not invent a defense of what is wrong. - You already agree for stated, weighed reasons — do not perform a fake debate. - Trivial or fully reversible choices where deliberation cost exceeds downside. - Live emergency — act first; steel-man in the post-incident review. - Need definition/assumption cleanup, not opposition — use socratic. - Need failure scenarios for a plan — use pre-mortem; need attacker paths — use red-team. ## Procedure 1. **State the target claim or decision** you are about to accept or reject, in one sentence. Name the real alternative if one exists. 2. **Extract the core insight** behind the opposing position (or against your preferred path): the legitimate concern even if the proposed solution is wrong. 3. **Construct the strongest faithful case** an informed advocate would make: best evidence, incentives, and failure modes — no mockery, no cherry-picked weak version, no motive attacks. Include base rates or concrete alternatives that could overturn the preferred path when relevant. 4. **State agreement / overturn conditions.** Write one observation or result that would make you accept the opposing case (or abandon your preferred path), and whether you have looked for it. 5. **Engage that strong version, then decide.** Respond to the steel-manned case on the merits. Output one of: accept opposing path, revise synthesis, or reaffirm original with explicit residual risks. Naming the countercase without accept/revise/reaffirm is incomplete. Stop once the decision updates or is reaffirmed with conditions. ## Output ```text claim: <decision or proposal under test> core_insight: <legitimate concern behind the opposition> steel_man: <strongest faithful opposing argument> overturn_if: <concrete observation that would change your mind> looked_for_overturn: yes | no | partial response_to_steel_man: <engagement on the merits> decision: accept_opposing | revise | reaffirm update: <what changed in belief or plan, or why reaffirm stands> residual_risks: <what remains even after reaffirm/revise> ``` ## Verification - **Falsify / stop:** If the "steel man" is weaker than the original or attacks a caricature, rebuild it. If no overturn condition is stated, the check is incomplete. If evidence meets the overturn condition, you must update — reaffirmation is then false. - **Over-application guard:** Do not steel-man factual errors or hard constraints. Do not run a full adversarial brief for near-zero-cost reversible choices. Do not use this skill to delay an emergency response.