Slash Command

/obsidian-challenge

Red-team your current idea against your own vault history — finds contradictions, past failures, and flawed assumptions

npx claudepluginhub yashs33244/my-mac-claude --plugin gstack

Prompt Preview

Use the obsidian-second-brain skill. Execute `/obsidian-challenge $ARGUMENTS`:

The optional argument is the idea, belief, or plan to challenge. If not provided, infer the user's current position from conversation context.

1. Read `_CLAUDE.md` first if it exists in the vault root
2. Identify the user's current claim, plan, or assumption — either from the argument or from recent conversation
3. Extract the key premises behind that position
4. Search the vault for counter-evidence — spawn parallel subagents:
   - **Decisions agent**: search Key Decisions sections in project notes for past de...

Command Content

Stats

Stars0

Forks0

Last CommitMay 5, 2026

Used By2 plugins

Actions

View Source View Plugin View on GitHub View README

Help us improve

Share bugs, ideas, or general feedback.

Use the obsidian-second-brain skill. Execute `/obsidian-challenge $ARGUMENTS`: The optional argument is the idea, belief, or plan to challenge. If not provided, infer the user's current position from conversation context. 1. Read `_CLAUDE.md` first if it exists in the vault root 2. Identify the user's current claim, plan, or assumption — either from the argument or from recent conversation 3. Extract the key premises behind that position 4. Search the vault for counter-evidence — spawn parallel subagents: - **Decisions agent**: search Key Decisions sections in project notes for past de...

Use the obsidian-second-brain skill. Execute /obsidian-challenge $ARGUMENTS:

The optional argument is the idea, belief, or plan to challenge. If not provided, infer the user's current position from conversation context.

Read _CLAUDE.md first if it exists in the vault root
Identify the user's current claim, plan, or assumption — either from the argument or from recent conversation
Extract the key premises behind that position
Search the vault for counter-evidence — spawn parallel subagents:
- Decisions agent: search Key Decisions sections in project notes for past decisions that contradicted or reversed similar thinking
- Failures agent: search dev logs, daily notes, and archives for past failures, regrets, or lessons learned related to this topic
- Contradictions agent: search for notes where the user held the opposite position or flagged risks about this exact approach
Synthesize a structured "Red Team" analysis:
- Your position: restate the claim clearly
- Counter-evidence from your vault: cite specific notes, dates, and quotes
- Blind spots: what the user might be ignoring based on their own history
- Verdict: is this position consistent with past experience, or does the vault suggest caution?
Log the challenge in today's daily note under a Thinking section

Do not be agreeable. The entire point is to pressure-test. Cite specific vault files. If you find nothing contradictory, say so honestly — but search thoroughly first.

AI-first rule: Every note created or updated by this command MUST follow references/ai-first-rules.md — ## For future Claude preamble, rich frontmatter (type, date, tags, ai-first: true, plus type-specific fields), recency markers per external claim, mandatory [[wikilinks]] for every person/project/concept referenced, sources preserved verbatim with URLs inline, and confidence levels where applicable. The vault is for future-Claude retrieval — not human reading.