the-fool

📁 jeffallan/claude-skills 📅 4 days ago
52
总安装量
52
周安装量
#4142
全站排名
安装命令
npx skills add https://github.com/jeffallan/claude-skills --skill the-fool

Agent 安装分布

opencode 42
claude-code 37
gemini-cli 36
codex 36
github-copilot 32
cursor 31

Skill 文档

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):

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.md and 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 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.

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:

  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