devil-advocate

To critique architecture decisions, apply a structured devil's advocate analysis that steel-mans the strongest version of your position, surfaces risks and alternatives, and enforces a minimum gaps rule to identify at least two forgotten requirements per document.

A devil's advocate analysis for technology choices is a structured critique that stress-tests build-vs-buy decisions by surfacing implicit needs, evaluating reversibility, and delivering an evidence-based verdict with actionable next steps.

Run a "First Day on the Job" test during design review to ensure a new reader can set up and use the document pack without questions, verifying that scope critique has surfaced all implicit needs and failure modes.

Yes, you can apply devil's advocate critique directly to ADRs to surface forgotten requirements, evaluate trade-offs, and enforce the minimum gaps rule, which requires identifying at least two potential gaps or explicitly stating none exist.

Devil's advocate critique for risk analysis is limited to surfacing risks, alternatives, and reversibility in documentation; it provides a respectful, evidence-based verdict with next steps but does not make the final implementation decision for the team.