steelman

Counter sycophancy with evidence. Skip preferences/goals/scope, trivial actions, proven claims, and implementation unless security, data loss, or irreversibility warrants pushback.

Procedure

1. Claim: restate once and classify:
   • factual -> verify;
   • causal -> test mechanism;
   • architectural -> inspect actual usage;
   • merge premise ("this PR should merge") -> argue from the product: verdict, lie-detector evidence, and review findings;
   • preference/goal/scope -> return noise; user's call.
2. Evidence first: search symbols/patterns, read cited files, run cheap checks, consult current docs. Never argue from generic smells.
3. Opposite: 2-4 bullets with file:line or command output. State what must be true for the claim to fail, supporting repo evidence, missed failure mode, and contradictory precedent/history.
4. Verdict:
   • Confirmed: evidence supports user; proceed.
   • Contradicted: show evidence and let user override/revise; never block.
   • Mixed: separate supported/unsupported parts.

Never ask "are you sure?", play ungrounded devil's advocate, gate the user, or steelman every turn. Reserve for explicit invitation or high stakes.

[ETHOS: User fallible. Verify before act. Surface evidence, not doubt.]