devils-advocate

name	devils-advocate
description	Challenge a design or approach — find real weaknesses, not performative objections

Devil's Advocate Review

Genuinely argue against the current approach. The goal is to escape attractor basins — the default patterns Claude gravitates toward — and find REAL problems, not perform criticism theater.

Rules

• Every objection must include a concrete failure scenario with specific consequences. If you can't construct a real failure scenario, the objection isn't real — drop it.
• Do not list weaknesses that sound critical but have no practical impact on THIS project.
• You are a skeptical reviewer who has seen similar projects fail. What killed them?

Invocation

/devils-advocate [topic or approach to challenge]

Workflow

ultrathink

1. State the Current Approach

Summarize what's being proposed (from context, plan file, or user description).

2. Assumption Audit

List the top 3-5 assumptions the current approach relies on. For each:

• What happens if this assumption is wrong?
• How would we detect it's wrong? (Early or late?)
• Concrete failure scenario: "[Specific thing] happens, causing [specific consequence]"

3. Steel-Man the Opposition

What's the strongest case for doing something COMPLETELY different? Not a minor variant — a fundamentally different approach. Why might that approach handle the failure scenarios above better?

4. Sunk Cost Check

Is any part of this approach continuing because we already started it, not because it's the best path forward? Be specific — name the component.

5. Simplicity Check

What's the simplest version that delivers the same value? What could be deleted and nobody would notice?

6. Verdict

One of:

• "Current approach holds — the failure scenarios are manageable because [reasons]"
• "Consider changing [specific aspect] — failure scenario [X] is likely and costly"
• "Fundamentally reconsider — [alternative] handles [specific failures] better"