Critique ideas via steelman restatement and five challenge modes.
npx skills add https://github.com/oiagorodrigues/qcontabil --skill the-fool-oiagorodrigues
Please help me install this Agent Skill. Skill: the-fool Source: https://github.com/oiagorodrigues/qcontabil/tree/main/.cursor/skills/the-fool Command: npx skills add https://github.com/oiagorodrigues/qcontabil --skill the-fool-oiagorodrigues
Many ideas, plans, and proposals fail to face rigorous, balanced critique before commitment, leading to biased decisions and missed blind spots. The Fool provides a formal, repeatable method to challenge assumptions and stress-test outcomes with structured reasoning.
Restate the user’s position as a steelman thesis, then select a mode and present 3–5 concrete challenges.
High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.
A devil's advocate critique systematically challenges assumptions and stress-tests proposals to expose blind spots. It improves decision quality by applying a formal, repeatable method that uncovers biased reasoning and validates evidence before final commitment.
To run a pre-mortem analysis or red team challenge, you restate your proposal as a steelman thesis, then select a critique mode to generate 3-5 concrete challenges. This process identifies weaknesses and tests evidence to guide a strengthened final plan.
Yes, cognitive bias integration is used to find weaknesses by grounding critiques in proven methods like socratic questioning and evidence audits. It maps specific biases to your strategic plan's vulnerabilities, producing concrete challenges that reveal flawed assumptions.
The best way to steelman an argument is to restate the user's position as the strongest possible version of that thesis. This steelman restatement serves as the starting point to build accurate counter-arguments and run adversarial red team tests.
You should avoid using a devil's advocate framework when a decision requires immediate action without time for structured synthesis, or when the proposal has already undergone rigorous evidence auditing and lacks sufficient detail for steelman restatement.
Yes, steelman restatement works directly with evidence audits by first establishing the strongest argument, then systematically testing the supporting evidence. This combined approach uncovers decision blind spots through grounded, mode-specific references and bias awareness.
phazurlabsAnalyze UX interfaces for cognitive load, decision bias, and attention failures.
cagdotinIdentify and resolve plan gaps through structured questioning and dependency mapping.
xcrrrStructure multi-criteria decisions with weighted scoring and documented summaries.
rodrigotoledoSteelman user theses and generate 3-5 mode-based challenges with bias scans.
