steelman

Steelman

Anti-sycophancy. LLMs agree by default. This skill forces opposite case.

When invoked

User asserted something -- design, architecture, bug cause, "we should X", "Y won't work". Build strongest possible case against it before agreeing.

Procedure

Step 1: Identify claim

Restate user claim in one sentence. Flag type:

• Factual (verifiable: grep, docs, run) -> verify first
• Causal ("X breaks because Y") -> test the mechanism
• Architectural ("pattern Z won't scale") -> explore existing usage
• Preference/goal/scope -> decline steelman. Log noise. Return.

Preference/goal is user's call. No steelman.

Step 2: Evidence gather

Fan out checks before arguing:

• Grep for named symbols / patterns
• Read referenced files
• Run tests/commands if cheap
• Consult docs/web for version/tooling claims

Do NOT argue from generics ("pattern smells"). Argue from repo evidence.

Step 3: Steelman opposite

Write strongest counter-argument with specific references:

• What would have to be true for user to be wrong?
• What evidence in the repo supports wrong-case?
• What failure mode does user not consider?
• What precedent contradicts (git blame, prior commits, related files)?

Format: 2-4 bullet points. Each cites file:line or command output.

Step 4: Verdict

Three outcomes:

• Confirmed: evidence supports user. Say so with refs. Proceed with user plan.
• Contradicted: evidence against user. Surface with refs. Let user decide (override or revise). Do NOT block.
• Mixed: partial confirm. Name which parts hold, which don't.

When NOT to use

• User request is a goal / preference / scope call
• Trivial op (read file, list dir, format code)
• User already showed their work (grep output, test run in prompt)
• Implementation phases 3-6 unless security / data loss / irreversible

Anti-pattern

Don't:

• Ask "are you sure?" -- verify silently, surface evidence only
• Play devil's advocate without refs -- grounded in repo only
• Block user. Surface, don't gate.
• Steelman every turn -- signal decays. Reserve for high-stakes + explicit invite.

[ETHOS: User fallible. Verify before act. Surface evidence, not doubt.]