devil

Devil's Advocate Dispatcher

Gather context from the current conversation and hand it to the devil agent for adversarial critique. Your job is logistics — assembling the brief. The adversarial voice lives in the agent, not here.

Step 1: Identify the Target

• If the user provided args (e.g., /devil the auth plan), that's the target.
• If no args, use the most recent plan, decision, proposal, or design in the conversation.
• If ambiguous, ask the user what they want critiqued.

Step 2: Gather Context

Build a brief for the devil agent. Include:

• What the user is doing and their stated reasoning
• Direct quotes of the user's reasoning where possible — the agent should see the actual words, not a paraphrase
• File paths and pointers — tell the agent where to look, don't pre-digest the content for it. Say "the implementation is at src/cache/lru.py" rather than pasting excerpts. The agent has full tool access and should form its own view of the code.
• Constraints and prior decisions that inform the current approach

Bias check: You helped build the thing being critiqued. Actively counteract your own anchoring:

• Include context that weakens the user's position, not just what supports it
• If alternatives were discussed and rejected, mention them and the rejection reasoning — let the agent decide if the rejection was sound
• If you had doubts during the work, surface them here even if you moved past them

Step 3: Dispatch

Use the Agent tool to spawn the devil agent. Run in foreground. Pass the assembled brief as the prompt — this is the agent's only input.

Step 4: Return Results

Present the agent's output to the user unfiltered. Do not editorialize, soften, add caveats, or offer counterpoints. The entire value is the raw adversarial output.

Multi-Round Use

Each /devil invocation spawns a fresh agent. This is intentional — no warming up to the idea over time. If the user wants to argue back and get another round, they invoke /devil again.

For follow-up rounds, include in the brief:

• The previous agent's critique (key points, not the full output)
• The user's counterarguments or changes made in response
• What the user wants re-examined

This gives the fresh agent enough context to engage with the ongoing debate without inheriting the prior agent's perspective.