본문으로 건너뛰기
cccskills
무료GitHub에 공개

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.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

설치 방법 보기

포함된 파일(7)

  • SKILL.md6.0 KB
  • references/dialectic-synthesis.md6.3 KB
  • references/evidence-audit.md8.3 KB
  • references/mode-selection-guide.md4.5 KB
  • references/pre-mortem-analysis.md7.9 KB
  • references/red-team-adversarial.md7.0 KB
  • references/socratic-questioning.md5.2 KB

SKILL.md(원문)

설치하기 전에 에이전트에게 전달되는 지시 내용을 확인할 수 있습니다.

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):

OptionDescription
Question assumptionsProbe what's being taken for granted
Build counter-argumentsArgue the strongest opposing position
Find weaknessesAnticipate how this fails or gets exploited
You chooseAuto-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

ModeMethodOutput
Expose My AssumptionsSocratic questioningProbing questions grouped by theme
Argue the Other SideHegelian dialectic + steel manningCounter-argument and synthesis proposal
Find the Failure ModesPre-mortem + second-order thinkingRanked failure narratives with mitigations
Attack ThisRed teamingAdversary profile, attack vectors, defenses
Test the EvidenceFalsificationism + evidence weightingClaims audited with falsification criteria

Reference Guide

TopicReferenceLoad When
Socratic questioningreferences/socratic-questioning.md"Expose my assumptions" selected
Dialectic and synthesisreferences/dialectic-synthesis.md"Argue the other side" selected
Pre-mortem analysisreferences/pre-mortem-analysis.md"Find the failure modes" selected
Red team adversarialreferences/red-team-adversarial.md"Attack this" selected
Evidence auditreferences/evidence-audit.md"Test the evidence" selected
Mode selection guidereferences/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.

ModeDeliverable
Expose My AssumptionsAssumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments
Argue the Other SideSteelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating
Find the Failure ModesRanked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check
Attack ThisAdversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses
Test the EvidenceClaims 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

리뷰

아직 리뷰가 없습니다. 사용해 본 소감을 남겨 주세요.

댓글

로그인 없이 쓸 수 있습니다. 사용 후기, 질문, 작동하지 않은 환경 등을 편하게 남겨 주세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 댓글을 남겨 보세요.

보내면 바로 공개됩니다. 이메일 주소나 전화번호 같은 개인 정보는 쓰지 마세요. URL은 2개까지입니다.

0 / 1,000자

이 양식은 reCAPTCHA로 보호되며 Google 개인정보처리방침 및 서비스 약관이 적용됩니다.

같은 저장소의 스킬

Prepares Go applications to work effectively with AI coding agents. Use when setting up a new Go project or retrofitting an existing one to ensure: structured JSON logging (slog/Zap/ZeroLog/Logrus), machine-readable command output, thorough golangci-lint configuration, non-interactive CLI design with --yes flags, structured error handling with meaningful exit codes, proper context.Context propagation, graceful shutdown, health check endpoints, and a standardized Makefile. Triggers when a user asks to make their Go app "agent-ready," "AI-friendly," wants to improve agent tooling/observability in a Go project, or needs to audit an existing Go project against agent-readiness best practices.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

Use when creating or updating AGENTS.md files, .github/copilot-instructions.md, or other AI agent rule files, onboarding AI agents to a project, standardizing agent documentation, or when anyone mentions AGENTS.md, agent rules, project onboarding, or codebase documentation for AI agents.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

Use when designing new high-level system architecture, reviewing existing designs, or making architectural decisions. Invoke to create architecture diagrams, write Architecture Decision Records (ADRs), evaluate technology trade-offs, design component interactions, and plan for scalability. Use for system design, architecture review, microservices structuring, ADR authoring, scalability planning, and infrastructure pattern selection — distinct from code-level design patterns or database-only design tasks.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

Use when building CLI tools, implementing argument parsing, or adding interactive prompts. Invoke for parsing flags and subcommands, displaying progress bars and spinners, generating bash/zsh/fish completion scripts, CLI design, shell completions, and cross-platform terminal applications using commander, click, typer, or cobra.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

Convert an AWS CloudFormation stack or template to Pulumi. This skill MUST be loaded whenever a user requests migration or conversion of CloudFormation to Pulumi.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

Analyzes code diffs and files to identify bugs, security vulnerabilities (SQL injection, XSS, insecure deserialization), code smells, N+1 queries, naming issues, and architectural concerns, then produces a structured review report with prioritized, actionable feedback. Use when reviewing pull requests, conducting code quality audits, identifying refactoring opportunities, or checking for security issues. Invoke for PR reviews, code quality checks, refactoring suggestions, review code, code quality. Complements specialized skills (security-reviewer, test-master) by providing broad-scope review across correctness, performance, maintainability, and test coverage in a single pass.

한국어 요약은 준비 중입니다. 원문 설명을 표시하고 있습니다.

dirien/yet-another-agent-harness202026년 5월 31일 업데이트

dirien의 스킬 모두 보기

이 스킬의 문제 신고