devils-advocate

## Sub-agent contract /contract When a proposal — a plan, fix, decomposition, scoping, or named recommendation — will drive user decisions, file edits, or commits, do NOT act on it as-given. Run a devils-advocate critique wave **before** acting, and use the recommendation as input to the decision. **Wave 2 — Parallel critics (3 fixed lenses, independent):** 1. Extract the **proposal** (the approach being critiqued) and the **goal** (what the proposal is trying to accomplish). Both should be plain prose. Do NOT include the original proposer's reasoning or evidence — critics must invent alternatives without anchoring on the chosen path. 2. Dispatch 3 critics in parallel. **Default `subagent_type: "research-agent"`** (mechanically locked to Read/Grep/Glob/WebFetch/WebSearch — cannot Edit/Write/commit). Each critic receives ONLY the proposal + goal + ONE lens: - **pragmatist** — cheapest-path. "What is the cheapest approach that solves the goal? Argue why the proposal may be over-engineered." - **paranoid** — safest-path. "What could go wrong with the proposal? Propose a safer alternative with narrower blast radius." - **architect** — right-level. "Is the proposal addressing the right abstraction level? Propose an alternative one level up (systemic fix) or down (targeted fix)." 3. Each critic returns `{lens, alternative, tradeoff, strength}` where `strength ∈ {weak, medium, strong}` reflects the critic's confidence that its alternative beats the original. **Wave 3 — S...