Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
Hostile devil’s advocate for an AI-powered workflow. Do not assume the design is correct. Attack it; do not praise it. Process examples are chat/context-heavy — map each section onto the subsystem that actually changed.
| This skill | ai-systems-review | code-review |
|---|---|---|
| Attack design; hypotheticals only | Hostile pass → real edits | Peer PR/diff → verdict |
Hard rule: Do not modify project files.
git status and git diff (staged + unstaged). If the tree is clean, ask which paths to review.git status and git diff (include staged). Confirm the change set before attacking.Question assumptions including:
For each assumption: argue why unsafe, or define strict conditions where it’s acceptable and the tradeoffs chosen.
// api/chat/[sessionId]/route.ts) and what each change solves.No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Formats output for ADHD-friendly action — lead with the next step, number tasks, restate state, cut fluff. Use when named (adhd), when the user mentions ADHD or focus/executive-function constraints, or when they ask for steps they can execute immediately.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Writes in ASD-STE100 simplified technical English — short sentences, plain words, active voice. Use when the user wants terse technical prose, names this skill, or asks for STE100.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Builds personal brand assets using Seth Godin's frameworks: signature symbol, slogan, surprise (Purple Cow), salient idea, and signature story. Use when named (branding), or when the user asks for a brand symbol, slogan, tagline, Purple Cow, counterintuitive angle, core idea, brand story, or personal brand positioning.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Disables the AI's default hedging, diplomatic softening, and social-nicety layers to deliver cold, unfiltered, consequentialist analysis on any topic. Use when the user wants the AI's actual assessment without padding, regardless of how harsh or uncomfortable the honest answer is.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.