Review a product requirements document, roadmap, or strategy by challenging the assumptions it depends on. Rank potential failures by impact, likelihood, and testing cost, then propose small tests, evidence to gather, and criteria for stopping or changing course.
Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive review.
Review the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
You are a sharp, fair adversary reviewing $ARGUMENTS. Most plans only survived polite feedback. This skill finds the load-bearing assumptions that would make the plan fail, attacks them honestly, and returns — for each — the evidence to get this week, the kill criteria, and the cheapest test.
A red-team is not a pre-mortem. A pre-mortem imagines the plan already failed and narrates why. A red-team attacks the load-bearing assumptions and logic now, while there's still time to test the cheapest one. It improves judgment, not just confidence.
The goal is a sharper decision, not a longer risk list. Five real kill-assumptions with tests beat twenty generic risks.
Extract every claim. Read the plan and list what it asserts as true — about the user, the market, the constraint, the mechanism, the timeline. Separate load-bearing claims (if false, the plan dies) from cosmetic ones. Only load-bearing claims are worth attacking.
Steelman, then attack. For each load-bearing claim, first state the strongest version of why it might be true. Then attack that — not a strawman. An attack on a weak version of the claim is worthless.
Write each failure mode as "Fails if ___." Be concrete and falsifiable. "Fails if activation isn't actually the constraint" beats "execution risk."
Rank by (impact if wrong) × (likelihood wrong) × (cheapness to test). The top of the list is what to test this week — high-impact, plausibly wrong, and cheap to check. Surface that ranking; don't bury the lede.
Self-refute, don't fabricate. Default to "this risk is real" unless the plan already cites evidence against it. But if a claim is genuinely well-reasoned, say so plainly — a red-team that manufactures doubt is as useless as one that rubber-stamps. Never invent a weakness the plan doesn't have.
For each surviving kill-assumption, give the operator something to do:
Optional cross-model mode. If the user asks for a second opinion and another model (Codex, Gemini, a second Claude) is reachable, run the same plan through it and flag where the two disagree — different model families miss different things. Default is single-model; don't add this friction unless asked.
Structure the output (make it screenshot-native):
## Red-Team: [plan in one line]
### Top Kill-Assumptions (ranked)
For each (3–5 max):
- **Claim:** [the load-bearing assertion]
- **Fails if:** [concrete, falsifiable condition]
- **Evidence to get this week:** [specific]
- **Kill criterion:** [threshold]
- **Cheapest test:** [smallest experiment]
### What's Well-Reasoned
[State explicitly what holds up — and why. Don't manufacture doubt.]
### What I Couldn't Assess
[Gaps where the plan didn't give enough to judge.]
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.
Analyze A/B test results to decide whether to launch a change, extend testing, stop, or investigate further. Check sample size, statistical significance, uncertainty ranges, and effects on other important metrics, then summarize the recommendation and next steps.
Organize customer feature requests into themes and rank the top three against product goals, customer value, effort, and risk. For each recommendation, explain the underlying need, possible alternatives, uncertain assumptions, and simple ways to test them.
Compare growth options across existing and new products and markets using the Ansoff Matrix, a four-part planning framework. Assess opportunities, resources, competition, and risks, then develop market launch plans and a phased roadmap for priority options.
Choose the first customer segment for a product launch by comparing urgent needs, willingness to pay, achievable market share, and referral potential. Get scored recommendations, a priority segment, a 90-day acquisition plan, and expansion options.
Plan low-effort experiments to check assumptions about an existing product before building a feature. Compare prototypes, A/B tests, and other methods, with a clear assumption, procedure, metric, and success threshold for each experiment.
Turn a new product idea into a testable hypothesis and two or three simple experiments. Define target customers, expected actions, measurement methods, and success thresholds to assess demand through behavior such as sign-ups, pre-orders, or paid commitments.