From atum-workflows
Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.
npx claudepluginhub arnwaldn/atum-plugins-collection --plugin atum-workflowsThis skill uses the workspace's default tool permissions.
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.
Searches, retrieves, and installs Agent Skills from prompts.chat registry using MCP tools like search_skills and get_skill. Activates for finding skills, browsing catalogs, or extending Claude.
Searches prompts.chat for AI prompt templates by keyword or category, retrieves by ID with variable handling, and improves prompts via AI. Use for discovering or enhancing prompts.
Executes pre-written implementation plans: critically reviews, follows bite-sized steps exactly, runs verifications, tracks progress with checkpoints, uses git worktrees, stops on blockers.
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.
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):
| 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 |
Load detailed guidance based on context:
| Topic | Reference | Load When |
|---|---|---|
| Mode Selection | references/mode-selection-guide.md | Choosing which reasoning mode to apply, combining modes |
| Socratic Questioning | references/socratic-questioning.md | Exposing assumptions, probing questions, assumption inventory |
| Dialectic Synthesis | references/dialectic-synthesis.md | Building counter-arguments, steelmanning, thesis-antithesis-synthesis |
| Pre-Mortem Analysis | references/pre-mortem-analysis.md | Failure narratives, early warning signs, mitigation planning |
| Red Team (Adversarial) | references/red-team-adversarial.md | Attack vectors, adversary profiling, defense design |
| Evidence Audit | references/evidence-audit.md | Falsification criteria, evidence grading, competing explanations |
Each mode produces a structured deliverable:
| 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:
Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, steel manning, pre-mortem analysis, red teaming, falsificationism, abductive reasoning, second-order thinking, cognitive biases, inversion technique