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
- 参考文档references/dialectic-synthesis.md6.3 KB
- 参考文档references/evidence-audit.md8.3 KB
- 参考文档references/mode-selection-guide.md4.5 KB
- 参考文档references/pre-mortem-analysis.md7.9 KB
- 参考文档references/red-team-adversarial.md7.0 KB
- 参考文档references/socratic-questioning.md5.2 KB
- 参考文档references/step-1-capture.md3.7 KB
- 参考文档references/step-2-design.md5.7 KB
- 参考文档references/step-3-script.md3.8 KB
- 参考文档references/step-4-storyboard.md12.6 KB
- 参考文档references/step-5-vo.md2.0 KB
- 参考文档references/step-6-build.md9.2 KB
- 参考文档references/step-7-validate.md4.2 KB
- 参考文档references/techniques.md8.9 KB
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
- Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
- Select — Use
AskUserQuestionwith two-step mode selection (see below). - Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
- Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
- 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.mdand 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
AskUserQuestionfor 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
AskUserQuestioncan 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:
- Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
- Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
- User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
- Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
- 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.