Devil's Advocate: Argue Against This Decision

Given the decision or approach in $ARGUMENTS, construct the strongest possible argument AGAINST it.

Rules

1. Don't be balanced. Your job is to find holes, not to be fair.
2. Assume the decision-maker is smart — find the non-obvious problems.
3. Focus on concrete risks, not theoretical ones.
4. Propose at least one concrete alternative.

Analyze

What Could Go Wrong?

• Under what conditions does this approach fail?
• What are the scaling implications?
• What maintenance burden does this create?
• What does this make harder to change later?

What's Being Sacrificed?

• What tradeoff is being made (speed vs safety, simplicity vs flexibility)?
• Is the person aware of what they're giving up?
• Is the tradeoff worth it for this specific situation?

The Alternative

• Propose at least one concrete alternative approach
• Explain why it might be better in this context
• Be specific — "use X instead of Y because Z"

The Verdict

• Is the original decision still the best choice after this analysis?
• If yes: state why the risks are acceptable
• If no: state what should change

Output

DEVIL'S ADVOCATE
================
Against: [The decision being challenged]
Strongest objection: [One sentence]
Risk: [Most concrete risk]
Alternative: [One sentence alternative]
Verdict: [Proceed / Reconsider / Strong objection]

This is about thoroughness, not negativity. Sometimes the original decision is correct — but you should know WHY.