Constructive Dissent Command

Systematically challenge proposals through structured dissent protocols that expose weaknesses, test assumptions, and generate superior alternatives.

Overview

Transform potential conflicts into productive tension that leads to breakthrough thinking and robust implementation strategies.

Arguments

$1 (Required): The proposal or decision to challenge --intensity: Challenge level (gentle, systematic, rigorous, paradigmatic) --alternatives: Number of alternatives to generate (default: 3)

Dissent Intensity Framework

Gentle Level (Refinement-focused)

[Extended thinking: Improve without fundamental challenge to core approach]

Challenge Characteristics:

• Assumption questioning with evidence requests
• Edge case identification with boundary testing
• Implementation detail refinement
• Risk mitigation suggestions
• Alternative approach comparison

Example Phrases:

• "This approach has merit, but what if we considered..."
• "I'm curious about how this would handle..."
• "What assumptions are we making about..."
• "Have we considered the implications of..."

Systematic Level (Methodology-challenging)

[Extended thinking: Challenge underlying methods while respecting intent]

Challenge Characteristics:

• Methodology critique with alternatives
• Evidence evaluation with validation requirements
• Stakeholder perspective integration
• Long-term consequence analysis
• Resource allocation questioning

Example Phrases:

• "While the goal is sound, I question whether this methodology..."
• "The evidence presented doesn't address..."
• "From the perspective of [stakeholder], this might..."
• "Long-term, this could lead to..."

Rigorous Level (Premise-challenging)

[Extended thinking: Attack fundamental premises, demand comprehensive justification]

Challenge Characteristics:

• Fundamental premise questioning
• Paradigm alternative generation
• Success criteria challenge
• Stakeholder priority reordering
• Innovation opportunity identification

Example Phrases:

• "I fundamentally question whether we're solving the right problem..."
• "This entire framework assumes X, but what if..."
• "Are we defining success correctly, or should we..."
• "This prioritizes X, but shouldn't we prioritize Y because..."

Paradigmatic Level (Worldview-challenging)

[Extended thinking: Question fundamental worldview, propose radical alternatives]

Challenge Characteristics:

• Worldview assumption identification
• Revolutionary approach generation
• Value system questioning
• Future-state visioning
• Breakthrough innovation pursuit

Example Phrases:

• "This assumes a world where X, but we're moving toward..."
• "What if everything we think we know about this is wrong?"
• "Instead of optimizing within constraints, what if we eliminated them?"
• "Are we thinking big enough?"

Challenge Methodologies

Assumption Audit

1. Explicit assumptions: What's stated as given?
2. Implicit assumptions: What's unstated but operating?
3. Structural assumptions: What framework biases exist?
4. Temporal assumptions: What time constraints are artificial?

Edge Case Generation

• Scale extremes: Minimum and maximum scenarios
• Performance limits: Where does it break?
• User behavior extremes: Best and worst case usage
• Environmental variations: Different contexts
• Resource constraints: Limited budget/time/people

Alternative Generation Framework

1. Goal abstraction: Extract core objectives from specific implementation
2. Constraint relaxation: Temporarily remove limitations
3. Method inversion: Consider opposite approaches
4. Cross-domain inspiration: Apply solutions from other fields
5. Future projection: Design for different conditions

Stakeholder Advocacy

• End user: How does this affect people using it?
• Maintainer: What's the ongoing cost?
• Security: What risks does this introduce?
• Accessibility: Who might be excluded?
• Future stakeholder: Who isn't here yet?

Output Format

## Constructive Dissent Analysis: [Proposal Title]

### Intensity Level: [Selected Level]

### Executive Summary
[2-3 sentence summary of key challenges and recommendations]

### Assumption Audit
| Assumption | Type | Validity | Risk if Wrong |
|------------|------|----------|---------------|
| [Assumption 1] | Explicit/Implicit | High/Medium/Low | [Impact] |

### Challenges Raised

#### Challenge 1: [Title]
**Type**: [Methodology/Premise/Evidence/Stakeholder]
**Core Argument**: [What's being challenged and why]
**Evidence**: [Data or reasoning supporting challenge]
**Alternative Approach**: [What to do instead]

### Generated Alternatives

#### Alternative 1: [Title]
**Approach**: [High-level description]
**Advantages**: [Why this might be better]
**Trade-offs**: [What you give up]
**Implementation Path**: [How to execute]

### Synthesis Recommendations

#### Strengthen Current Proposal
1. [Specific improvement]
2. [Specific improvement]

#### Consider Alternative If
- [Condition that favors switching]
- [Condition that favors switching]

### Unresolved Questions
- [Question requiring more information]
- [Question requiring more information]

Examples

# Gentle challenge for refinement
/constructive-dissent "Our API pagination strategy uses offset-based pagination" --intensity=gentle

# Systematic challenge for major decision
/constructive-dissent "Migrate to microservices architecture" --intensity=systematic --alternatives=3

# Rigorous challenge for strategic direction
/constructive-dissent "Build our own CMS instead of using existing solutions" --intensity=rigorous

# Paradigmatic challenge for transformation
/constructive-dissent "Our business model of per-seat licensing" --intensity=paradigmatic

Success Indicators

• Identified assumptions that were previously invisible
• Generated viable alternatives not previously considered
• Strengthened original proposal through challenge
• Clear decision criteria for choosing approaches
• Stakeholder perspectives adequately represented

Invoke constructive challenge analysis with: $ARGUMENTS