AGENT SKILL

the-fool

Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.

License 许可
MIT
最近更新
2026-04-16
Stars
★ 52
Forks
13

01 前言 Front Matter

name
the-fool
license
MIT
metadata
{ "role": "expert", "scope": "review", "author": "https://github.com/Jeffallan", "domain": "workflow", "version": "1.0.0", "triggers": "play the fool, devil's advocate, challenge this, stress test, poke holes, what could go wrong, red team, pre-mortem, test my assumptions", "output-format": "report", "related-skills": "architecture-designer, code-reviewer, feature-forge" }
description
Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.

02 资源文件 14

03 SKILL.md 正文

The Fool

The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.

When to Use This Skill

  • Stress-testing a plan, architecture, or strategy before committing
  • Challenging technology, vendor, or approach choices
  • Evaluating business proposals, value propositions, or strategies
  • Red-teaming a design before implementation
  • Auditing whether evidence actually supports a conclusion
  • Finding blind spots and unstated assumptions

Core Workflow

  1. Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
  2. Select — Use AskUserQuestion with two-step mode selection (see below).
  3. Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
  4. Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
  5. Synthesize — Integrate insights into a strengthened position. Offer a second pass with a different mode.

Mode Selection

Use AskUserQuestion to let the user choose how to challenge their idea.

Step 1 — Pick a category (4 options):

Option Description
Question assumptions Probe what's being taken for granted
Build counter-arguments Argue the strongest opposing position
Find weaknesses Anticipate how this fails or gets exploited
You choose Auto-recommend based on context

Step 2 — Refine mode (only when the category maps to 2 modes):

  • "Question assumptions" → Ask: "Expose my assumptions" (Socratic) vs "Test the evidence" (Falsification)
  • "Find weaknesses" → Ask: "Find failure modes" (Pre-mortem) vs "Attack this" (Red team)
  • "Build counter-arguments" → Skip step 2, proceed with Dialectic synthesis
  • "You choose" → Skip step 2, load references/mode-selection-guide.md and auto-recommend

5 Reasoning Modes

Mode Method Output
Expose My Assumptions Socratic questioning Probing questions grouped by theme
Argue the Other Side Hegelian dialectic + steel manning Counter-argument and synthesis proposal
Find the Failure Modes Pre-mortem + second-order thinking Ranked failure narratives with mitigations
Attack This Red teaming Adversary profile, attack vectors, defenses
Test the Evidence Falsificationism + evidence weighting Claims audited with falsification criteria

Reference Guide

Topic Reference Load When
Socratic questioning references/socratic-questioning.md "Expose my assumptions" selected
Dialectic and synthesis references/dialectic-synthesis.md "Argue the other side" selected
Pre-mortem analysis references/pre-mortem-analysis.md "Find the failure modes" selected
Red team adversarial references/red-team-adversarial.md "Attack this" selected
Evidence audit references/evidence-audit.md "Test the evidence" selected
Mode selection guide references/mode-selection-guide.md "You choose" selected or auto-recommend needed

Constraints

MUST DO

  • Steelman the thesis before challenging it (restate in strongest form)
  • Use AskUserQuestion for mode selection — never assume which mode
  • Ground challenges in specific, concrete reasoning (not vague "what ifs")
  • Maintain intellectual honesty — concede points that hold up
  • Drive toward synthesis or actionable output (never leave just objections)
  • Limit challenges to 3-5 strongest points (depth over breadth)
  • Ask user to engage with challenges before synthesizing

MUST NOT DO

  • Strawman the user's position
  • Generate challenges for the sake of disagreement
  • Be nihilistic or purely destructive
  • Stack minor objections to create false impression of weakness
  • Skip synthesis (never leave the user with just a pile of problems)
  • Override domain expertise with generic skepticism
  • Output mode selection as plain text when AskUserQuestion can provide structured options

Output Templates

Each mode produces a structured deliverable. See the corresponding reference file for the full template.

Mode Deliverable
Expose My Assumptions Assumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments
Argue the Other Side Steelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating
Find the Failure Modes Ranked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check
Attack This Adversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses
Test the Evidence Claims extracted + falsification criteria + evidence grades + competing explanations

After any mode, the final output must include:

  1. Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
  2. Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
  3. User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
  4. Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
  5. Next steps — Offer a second pass with a different mode if warranted

Knowledge Reference

Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, steel manning, pre-mortem analysis, red teaming, falsificationism, abductive reasoning, second-order thinking, cognitive biases, inversion technique

04 同仓库更多 Skills

eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

what-if-oracle

Run structured What-If scenario analysis with multi-branch possibility exploration. Use this skill when the user asks speculative questions like "what if...", "what would happen if...", "what are the possibilities", "explore scenarios", "scenario analysis", "possibility space", "what could go wrong", "best case / worst case", "risk analysis", "contingency planning", "strategic options", or any question about uncertain futures. Also trigger when the user faces a fork-in-the-road decision, wants to stress-test an idea, or needs to think through consequences before committing.

Skill与智能体开发
★ 52
eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

venue-templates

Access comprehensive LaTeX templates, formatting requirements, and submission guidelines for major scientific publication venues (Nature, Science, PLOS, IEEE, ACM), academic conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, CVPR, CHI), research posters, and grant proposals (NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA). This skill should be used when preparing manuscripts for journal submission, conference papers, research posters, or grant proposals and need venue-specific formatting requirements and templates.

内容创作者写作与文案资料检索与研究
★ 52
eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

scientific-writing

Core skill for the deep research and writing tool. Write scientific manuscripts in full paragraphs (never bullet points). Use two-stage process with (1) section outlines with key points using research-lookup then (2) convert to flowing prose. IMRAD structure, citations (APA/AMA/Vancouver), figures/tables, reporting guidelines (CONSORT/STROBE/PRISMA), for research papers and journal submissions.

内容创作者写作与文案Skill与智能体开发
★ 52
eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

scientific-brainstorming

Creative research ideation and exploration. Use for open-ended brainstorming sessions, exploring interdisciplinary connections, challenging assumptions, or identifying research gaps. Best for early-stage research planning when you do not have specific observations yet. For formulating testable hypotheses from data use hypothesis-generation.

Skill与智能体开发
★ 52
eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

research-lookup

Look up current research information using the Parallel Chat API (primary) or Perplexity sonar-pro-search (academic paper searches). Automatically routes queries to the best backend. Use for finding papers, gathering research data, and verifying scientific information.

开发工程师后端与接口资料检索与研究
★ 52
eric861129
eric861129/SKILLS_All-in-one

research-grants

Write competitive research proposals for NSF, NIH, DOE, DARPA, and Taiwan NSTC. Agency-specific formatting, review criteria, budget preparation, broader impacts, significance statements, innovation narratives, and compliance with submission requirements.

财务资料检索与研究Skill与智能体开发
★ 52