# Counterintuition Probe

> Challenge the most obvious explanation or preferred move by probing for counterintuitive alternatives that may better explain the situation. Use when the first answer feels too natural, when the team may be trapped by common sense, or when a surprising alternative deserves stress testing.

- Skill: `alubiama/counterintuition-probe` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add alubiama/counterintuition-probe`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/alubiama/counterintuition-probe/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Coding & Dev Tools
- Author: Alubiama (https://skillmd.com/u/alubiama)
- Updated: 2026-09-22
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/alubiama/counterintuition-probe

---


# Counterintuition Probe

## Goal

Attack the obvious answer and see whether a less intuitive explanation or move is stronger.

This skill does not oppose ideas for sport. It probes whether "what everyone assumes" is actually the best reading of the situation.

## When To Use

- the leading answer feels too obvious
- common sense is dominating the room
- the same explanation keeps winning without hard pressure
- a surprising alternative might explain more

## Scope Boundaries

In scope:

- identify the dominant assumption
- generate 1-3 serious counterintuitive alternatives
- compare them against the obvious answer
- recommend whether the obvious answer survives

Out of scope by default:

- contrarianism for its own sake
- endless philosophical debate
- random weird alternatives

## Workflow

1. State the obvious answer.
2. Name why it feels compelling.
3. Run a short guided reflection:
   - what would make the obvious answer fail
   - what assumption is carrying it most
4. Generate 1-3 counterintuitive alternatives.
5. Test which explains more with fewer assumptions.
6. Use `consider-the-opposite` explicitly against the preferred view.
7. Name what would falsify each view.
8. Recommend whether to keep, weaken, or replace the obvious answer.

## Output Contract

Always return:

1. `obvious_answer`
2. `why_it_feels_right`
3. `reflection_breakpoints`
4. `counterintuitive_alternatives`
5. `comparative_strength`
6. `falsifiers`
7. `recommended_position`
8. `recommended_followup`
9. `next_step`

## Guardrails

- Do not reward novelty alone.
- Do not keep weak alternatives alive just because they are surprising.
- Prefer falsifiable alternatives over clever rhetoric.
- Use counterintuition to improve judgment, not to create performative disagreement.

## Anti-Patterns

- contrarian theater
- shallow devil's advocacy
- weirdness without explanatory gain