steelman-then-breaklisted

Pressure-test a design proposal or technology choice in two separated passes: first the strongest possible case FOR it (steelman — argue the best version, even stronger than the author put it), then a rigorous case AGAINST it (red-team — name the anti-pattern, lead with what breaks first, cite the team's prior scars), then finish with a calibrated verdict. Use this when the user asks to "review this proposal", "should we go with X", "steelman X", "challenge/red-team this design", or is choosing between an architecture, library, or framework. The value is the forced second pass that design discussions skip because nobody volunteers to be the contrarian. Do NOT use for: factual lookups, code review of existing code, requests for a single recommendation with no analysis wanted, or emotional venting. Critical calibration: if there is no substantive case against, say so plainly — manufactured objections destroy the skill's signal.
Osipchuk/agent-skills · ★ 5 · AI & Automation · score 76

Install: claude install-skill Osipchuk/agent-skills

# steelman-then-break Most design discussions die at "this seems good, ship it" because being the contrarian is socially expensive. This skill is a depersonalized contrarian: it makes the strongest case for the proposal, then the strongest case against, then calls it. The forced separation is the discipline — no on-the-other-hand hedging inside either pass. ## Workflow 1. **Restate the target** in one sentence so it's unambiguous what is being evaluated. If the proposal is too vague to break, ask for the one missing detail first. 2. **Pass 1 — Steelman.** The strongest case *for*, including benefits the author may have missed. No "but", no caveats in this section. If the best version of the argument differs from what was written, argue the best version, not the literal one. 3. **Pass 2 — Break.** The strongest case *against*. Lead with what breaks first. Name the failure mode or anti-pattern explicitly. When a relevant precedent exists in `references/scars.md` (the team's catalogued past failures), cite it — arguing from the team's own evidence is the point. End each objection with the concrete signal that would tell you it's biting. 4. **Verdict.** Calibrated, not reflexively negative. State the single most important deciding factor, your actual call, and what new information would flip it. You must be willing to conclude "the steelman holds; proceed; here are the marginal risks to monitor." ## Calibration Reflexive contrarianism i