# Devils Advocate > > - **Type:** Skill - **Install:** `agentstack add skill-dungnotnull-hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm-s35-devils-advocate` - **Verified:** Yes — security-reviewed for prompt injection and unsafe behavior - **Seller:** [dungnotnull](https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dungnotnull) - **Installs:** 0 - **Category:** [Agent Skills](https://agentstack.voostack.com/c/agent-skills) - **Latest version:** 0.1.0 - **License:** MIT - **Upstream author:** [dungnotnull](https://github.com/dungnotnull) - **Source:** https://github.com/dungnotnull/hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm/tree/main/skills/s35-devils-advocate ## Install ```sh agentstack add skill-dungnotnull-hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm-s35-devils-advocate ``` Requires the [AgentStack CLI](https://agentstack.voostack.com/docs/cli). Works with Claude Code, Cursor, and any MCP-compatible agent. ## About # Devil's Advocate (s35) ## Purpose Systematically dismantle ideas, strategies, designs, and hypotheses to expose every flaw, assumption, contradiction, and logical fallacy — so only the strongest arguments survive. This skill operates as a quality gate across the entire workflow, ensuring that no critical decision goes unchallenged. Adapted from the Devil's Advocate Agent (github.com/dungnotnull/devils-advocate-agent), which provides: - Multi-intensity adversarial critique (Skeptic → Critic → Prosecutor → Demolisher) - Real-time logical fallacy detection (14+ fallacy types) - Multi-dimensional argument strength scoring (0-100 across clarity, evidence, logic, novelty, defense) - RAG-grounded counter-arguments using external evidence - Assumption hunting and implicit premise extraction This skill integrates those capabilities into the workflow as a callable quality gate. --- ## Input Contract | Input | Source | Required | |---|---|---| | Subject to critique | Any skill output, PRD, design, hypothesis, strategy | Yes | | Critique intensity level (1-4) | User specification or auto-determined | No (default: 2) | | Domain context | s01 PRD, s02 taste | Yes | | Relevant evidence/research | s32 deep-research (if available) | No | | Current phase context | s03 progress tracker | Yes | --- ## Output Contract | Output | Destination | Format | |---|---|---| | Counter-argument report | .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ | Markdown | | Argument strength scores | .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ | JSON | | Identified fallacies | .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ | JSON | | Assumption inventory | .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ | Markdown | | Recommended revisions | Target skill's output (feedback loop) | Markdown | | Quality gate verdict | s03 progress tracker | JSON | --- ## Prerequisites - [ ] Subject matter (idea, design, hypothesis, strategy) clearly defined - [ ] Domain context available (PRD, taste, or relevant background) - [ ] User or orchestrator has explicitly invoked critique --- ## Intensity Levels (Adapted from Devil's Advocate Agent) | Level | Name | Behavior | When to Use | |---|---|---|---| | 1 | Skeptic | Gentle probing questions; assumes good faith | Early ideation, brainstorming sessions | | 2 | Critic | Direct challenges with evidence; names gaps explicitly | Design reviews, hypothesis validation, PRD reviews | | 3 | Prosecutor | Systematic deconstruction of all premises; counts contradictions | Architecture decisions, security reviews, production readiness | | 4 | Demolisher | Maximum adversarial intensity; tears apart piece by piece | Pre-deployment gates, game day pre-mortems, compliance audits | **Default**: Level 2 (Critic) **Auto-escalation**: Increase by one level when: - The same weak argument is repeated without new evidence - Score drops ≥5 points between consecutive critique rounds - Critical assumption is left unaddressed after one challenge --- ## Critique Framework ### Phase 1: Input Analysis `yaml input_analysis: claim_extraction: - Identify every factual claim in the subject - Rate each claim: verifiable / unverifiable / opinion - Flag statistical claims without cited sources assumption_hunting: - Identify explicit assumptions (stated "we assume...") - Identify implicit assumptions (unstated but necessary for the argument) - Categorize: causal / universal / value / existence / comparison fallacy_detection: types: - ad_hominem: Attacking the person, not the argument - straw_man: Misrepresenting the opposing position - hasty_generalization: Drawing broad conclusions from limited data - false_dichotomy: Presenting only two options when more exist - appeal_to_authority: Citing authority without domain expertise - slippery_slope: Assuming one step inevitably leads to extreme outcomes - circular_reasoning: The conclusion is assumed in the premise - bandwagon: "Everyone is doing it" as sole justification - anecdotal_evidence: Generalizing from personal stories - confirmation_bias: Selectively citing supporting evidence only - sunk_cost: Continuing because of prior investment - survivorship_bias: Only considering successful cases - post_hoc: Assuming correlation implies causation - appeal_to_tradition: "This is how we've always done it" ` ### Phase 2: Multi-Perspective Challenge Every subject is challenged through four lenses (adapted from s01-1 user-flow review): `yaml perspectives: business_lens: questions: - "Does this actually solve the stated business problem?" - "What is the ROI? Can you quantify it?" - "What happens if adoption is 10% of projections?" - "What are the regulatory/compliance risks?" - "How does this impact revenue, costs, or customer churn?" engineering_lens: questions: - "Is this implementable with the current architecture?" - "What are the hidden complexity costs?" - "How does this scale to 10x current load?" - "What are the failure modes?" - "What are the blast radius implications?" reliability_lens: questions: - "What happens when this fails?" - "How do we detect failure? (Observability)" - "What is the recovery time objective?" - "Has this been tested under chaos conditions?" - "What are the cascading failure risks?" security_lens: questions: - "What is the attack surface of this change?" - "Are there privilege escalation paths?" - "Does this introduce new secrets or credentials?" - "Does this comply with security policies (s24)?" - "What is the worst-case security scenario?" ` ### Phase 3: Argument Strength Scoring Each argument is scored on a 0-100 scale across five dimensions: `json { "argument_strength": { "clarity": { "score": 0, "description": "How clearly is the claim stated?", "rubric": { "0-20": "Vague, ambiguous, or incomprehensible", "21-40": "Understandable but imprecise", "41-60": "Clear but could be more specific", "61-80": "Well-articulated with precise language", "81-100": "Crystal clear with measurable criteria" } }, "evidence_quality": { "score": 0, "description": "Quality and relevance of supporting evidence", "rubric": { "0-20": "No evidence or purely anecdotal", "21-40": "Weak evidence, cherry-picked data", "41-60": "Some evidence but gaps in sourcing", "61-80": "Well-sourced evidence from credible sources", "81-100": "Comprehensive, peer-reviewed, and quantified evidence" } }, "logical_consistency": { "score": 0, "description": "Freedom from contradictions and logical gaps", "rubric": { "0-20": "Major logical contradictions", "21-40": "Some contradictions or unsupported leaps", "41-60": "Mostly consistent with minor gaps", "61-80": "Consistent with well-reasoned connections", "81-100": "Ironclad logic with no gaps" } }, "novelty": { "score": 0, "description": "Originality and depth of reasoning", "rubric": { "0-20": "Repetitive of known approaches", "21-40": "Minor variations on existing ideas", "41-60": "Some original insight combined with known approaches", "61-80": "Novel approach with clear advantages", "81-100": "Breakthrough insight that shifts the paradigm" } }, "defense_improvement": { "score": 0, "description": "How well weaknesses were addressed in follow-up rounds", "rubric": { "0-20": "No defense offered or defense made it worse", "21-40": "Weak defense, ignored major counter-arguments", "41-60": "Partial defense, addressed some challenges", "61-80": "Strong defense, addressed most challenges effectively", "81-100": "Exceptional defense that strengthened the original argument" } } }, "overall_score": "weighted average: (clarity*0.2 + evidence*0.25 + logic*0.25 + novelty*0.15 + defense*0.15)" } ` ### Phase 4: Verdict Generation `yaml verdict: overall_assessment: one of [STRONG, MODERATE, WEAK, CRITICAL] confidence_level: percentage (0-100%) key_weaknesses: [list of top 3 weaknesses] key_strengths: [list of top 3 strengths] recommended_revisions: [list of specific, actionable revisions] escalation_needed: boolean (true if any dimension scores below 40) gate_result: PASS | CONDITIONAL_PASS | FAIL PASS: overall >= 70, no dimension below 50 CONDITIONAL_PASS: overall >= 50, no dimension below 40 FAIL: overall < 50 OR any dimension below 40 ` --- ## Workflow Integration Points The Devil's Advocate integrates with the workflow at critical decision gates: ### Integration with s14 (Experiment Design) `yaml trigger: After chaos experiment is designed, before blast radius approval action: Challenge the hypothesis, question fault selection, test abort conditions output: Counter-arguments fed back to s14 for revision, or gate PASSED ` ### Integration with s15 (Hypothesis Validation) `yaml trigger: After hypothesis is written, before acceptance criteria are locked action: Attack the hypothesis from the reliability lens — what if it's wrong? output: Strengthened hypothesis with better acceptance/rejection criteria ` ### Integration with s28 (Release Management) `yaml trigger: Before Go/No-Go decision action: Full Prosecutor-level (3) critique of release readiness output: Release gate verdict — PASS, CONDITIONAL, or FAIL ` ### Integration with s31 (Strategic Creator) `yaml trigger: After strategic proposals are generated action: Challenge every proposal with Demolisher-level (4) intensity output: Only proposals that survive are forwarded to user for acceptance ` ### Integration with s01 (BA Requirements) `yaml trigger: After PRD is drafted, before ADRs are locked action: Critic-level (2) challenge of business assumptions, technical feasibility output: Revised PRD with addressed counter-arguments documented ` --- ## Critique Execution Protocol ` Step 1: RECEIVE subject from invoking skill or user Step 2: LOAD domain context (PRD, taste, relevant research) Step 3: DETERMINE intensity level (default: 2, auto-escalate if needed) Step 4: EXTRACT claims, assumptions, and logical structure Step 5: DETECT fallacies (apply fallacy taxonomy) Step 6: GENERATE counter-arguments from each perspective lens Step 7: SCORE argument strength on 5 dimensions (0-100 each) Step 8: PRODUCE verdict (STRONG/MODERATE/WEAK/CRITICAL) Step 9: WRITE critique report to .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ Step 10: UPDATE progress.json with gate result Step 11: RETURN verdict + recommended revisions to invoking skill Step 12: IF gate FAIL → block progression, require revision IF gate CONDITIONAL → allow progression with documented risks IF gate PASS → proceed to next skill ` --- ## Counter-Argument Templates ### For Design Decisions ` ## Counter-Argument: [DESIGN DECISION] **Claim**: [What the design claims to achieve] **Challenge**: [Why it might not achieve this] ### Evidence Against 1. [Evidence point 1] 2. [Evidence point 2] 3. [Evidence point 3] ### Assumptions at Risk - [Assumption 1]: [Why it might not hold] - [Assumption 2]: [Why it might not hold] ### Alternative Approaches 1. [Alternative 1]: [Trade-offs] 2. [Alternative 2]: [Trade-offs] ### Score Impact - Clarity: -[N] points ([reason]) - Evidence: -[N] points ([reason]) - Logic: -[N] points ([reason]) ` ### For Hypotheses (Chaos Engineering) ` ## Counter-Argument: [HYPOTHESIS] **Hypothesis**: [If X fails, then Y should happen, measured by Z] **Challenge**: [Why the hypothesis might be wrong] ### What Could Go Wrong 1. [Failure mode 1]: [Description] 2. [Failure mode 2]: [Description] 3. [Failure mode 3]: [Description] ### Missing Considerations - [Observability gap]: [What metrics are missing?] - [Blast radius risk]: [What else could be affected?] - [Cascading failure]: [What if X failure triggers Y?] ### Recommended Strengthening 1. [Add metric/condition] 2. [Add probe] 3. [Add abort condition] ` ### For Release Decisions ` ## Counter-Argument: [RELEASE GATE] **Decision**: [Go/No-Go for release] **Challenge**: [Why this release might not be ready] ### Open Risks 1. [Risk 1]: [Severity] - [Mitigation status] 2. [Risk 2]: [Severity] - [Mitigation status] 3. [Risk 3]: [Severity] - [Mitigation status] ### Outstanding Items - [ ] [Checklist item 1] - [ ] [Checklist item 2] ### Verdict: CONDITIONAL_PASS **Conditions**: [List of conditions that must be met before Go] **Escalation**: [Who needs to approve if conditions not met] ` --- ## AI Agent Integration ### Autonomy Level | Aspect | Level | Description | |---|---|---| | Current | L1 | AI generates counter-arguments and scores; human decides on verdict | | Target | L2 | AI auto-critiques at designated gates; human reviews verdicts | ### Harness AI Agent **Agent**: None (adversarial by design — intentionally independent) **Fallback**: Uses the skill's built-in critique framework and fallacy taxonomy ### Human Gates - Final verdict acceptance (PASS/CONDITIONAL/FAIL) - Intensity level selection for each critique session - Escalation decisions when gate fails ### MCP Integration None required. This skill operates as a pure reasoning quality gate. ### Integration with Devil's Advocate Agent For enhanced critique, this skill can optionally integrate with the Devil's Advocate Agent (github.com/dungnotnull/devils-advocate-agent): `yaml integration: mode: optional # Skill works standalone; agent enhances it benefits: - ML-based fallacy detection (beyond rule-based taxonomy) - RAG-grounded counter-arguments from research papers - Argument strength scoring via cross-encoder NLI model - Persistent debate sessions for iterative improvement setup: - Clone devil-advocate-agent repository - Configure LLM provider (Anthropic/OpenAI/Ollama) - Start agent: python main.py --port 8001 - Set environment: DEVILS_ADVOCATE_URL=http://localhost:8001 usage: - Skill sends subject to /api/v1/debate/start - Receives counter-arguments with fallacy annotations - Incorporates into critique report - User can continue debate rounds for iterative strengthening ` --- ## Success Criteria - [ ] Every claim in the subject is extracted and categorized - [ ] At least 3 counter-arguments generated per perspective lens - [ ] All detected fallacies are named and explained - [ ] Argument strength scored on all 5 dimensions - [ ] Verdict includes specific, actionable recommended revisions - [ ] Gate result (PASS/CONDITIONAL/FAIL) is unambiguous - [ ] Critique report stored in .commandcode/artifacts/critique/ - [ ] Progress tracker updated with gate result - [ ] If gate FAIL, progression is blocked until revision - [ ] If gate CONDITIONAL, documented risks are recorded ## Source & license This open-source skill is cataloged on AgentStack and links to its original source — we do not rehost the code. - **Author:** [dungnotnull](https://github.com/dungnotnull) - **Source:** [dungnotnull/hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm](https://github.com/dungnotnull/hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm) - **License:** MIT Install and usage instructions live in the source repository linked above. ## Pricing - **Free** — Free ## Security capabilities Automated source analysis of v0.1.0 — what this tool can access: - **Network access:** no - **Filesystem access:** no - **Shell / process execution:** no - **Environment & secrets:** no - **Dynamic code execution:** no *"Yes" means the capability is present in the source — more access means more to trust, not that it is unsafe.* ## Versions - **0.1.0** — security scan: passed — Imported from the upstream source. ## Links - Listing page: https://agentstack.voostack.com/l/skill-dungnotnull-hybrid-harness-chaos-process-prm-s35-devils-advocate - Seller: https://agentstack.voostack.com/s/dungnotnull - Browse the marketplace: https://agentstack.voostack.com/browse --- Listed on AgentStack — the marketplace for AI agent skills and MCP servers. Every listing is security-reviewed. Creators keep 70%.