# Devils Advocate > Adversarially challenge research assumptions, mechanisms, and arguments in writing. Use when stress-testing a claim or design before committing to it. Not for an interactive oral drill or a full referee report; use $grill-me or a review agent. - Skill: `flonat/devils-advocate` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add flonat/devils-advocate` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/flonat/devils-advocate/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: AI & ML - Author: flonat (https://skillmd.com/u/flonat) - Updated: 2026-09-10 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/flonat/devils-advocate --- # Devil's Advocate Skill > Challenge research assumptions and identify weaknesses in your arguments. ## Purpose Based on Scott Cunningham's Part 3: "Creating Devil's Advocate Agents for Tough Problems" - addressing the "LLM thing of over-confidence in diagnosing a problem." **For formal code audits with replication scripts and referee reports, use the Referee 2 agent instead (`.claude/agents/referee2-reviewer.md`).** This skill is for quick adversarial feedback on arguments, not systematic audits. ## When to Use - Before submitting a paper - When stuck on a research problem - When you want to stress-test an argument - During paper revision planning ## When NOT to Use - **Code audits** — use the Referee 2 agent instead - **Replication verification** — use the Referee 2 agent instead - **Quick proofreading** — just ask for a read-through - **When you want validation** — this skill is designed to challenge, not affirm ## Workflow 1. **Understand the claim** — Read the paper/argument being evaluated 2. **Generate competing hypotheses** — If evaluating a research question or design, load `references/competing-hypotheses.md` and generate 3-5 rival explanations before critiquing 3. **Run the debate** — Use the multi-turn debate protocol below (default) or single-shot mode for quick checks 4. **Deliver the verdict** — Synthesize surviving critiques with severity ratings ## Multi-Turn Debate Protocol (Default) Inspired by the simulated scientific debates in Google's AI Co-Scientist. A one-shot critique is easy for an LLM to produce but often superficial. Multi-turn debates force each critique to survive a defense, filtering out weak objections and sharpening the strong ones. ### Round 1: Adversarial Critic Adopt the persona of a hostile but competent reviewer. Challenge on: 1. **Theoretical foundations** — Are the assumptions justified? 2. **Methodology** — Limitations? Alternative approaches? 3. **Data** — Selection bias? Measurement issues? External validity? 4. **Causal claims** — Alternative explanations? Confounders? 5. **Contribution** — Novel enough? Does it matter? Produce **numbered critiques** (aim for 5-8), each with a concrete statement of the problem. ### Round 2: Defense Switch persona to the paper's author. For each numbered critique, provide the strongest possible defense: - Cite evidence from the paper that addresses the concern - Explain design choices that mitigate the issue - Acknowledge limitations honestly where the defense is weak - Propose concrete fixes where the critique has merit ### Round 3: Adjudication Switch to an impartial senior reviewer. For each critique-defense pair, rule: - **Critique stands** — the defense is insufficient; this is a real weakness - **Critique partially addressed** — defense has merit but issue remains - **Critique resolved** — the defense adequately addresses the concern ### Final Synthesis Produce a structured report with only the surviving critiques (stands + partially addressed), ranked by severity: ```markdown ## Devil's Advocate Report ### Critical (must fix before submission) 1. [Critique] — [Why the defense failed] — [Suggested fix] ### Major (reviewers will likely raise) 2. [Critique] — [What remains after defense] — [Suggested fix] ### Minor (worth acknowledging) 3. [Critique] — [Residual concern] — [How to preempt] ### Dismissed - [Critiques that were resolved in Round 2, listed briefly for transparency] ``` ## Output Path & Stamping When run on a paper in a research project (a `paper-*/` directory exists), persist the report and stamp it into the review log — the same wiring as `proofread` and `bib-validate`, so `review-recap` renders it as a first-class review (not a manual slot). 1. **Write the report** to `reviews//devils-advocate/.md`, where `` is the in-scope paper slug (e.g. `paper-prima`) or `_project` for a project-level argument. Create the dir first (`mkdir -p reviews//devils-advocate/`). Never overwrite — each run is timestamped to the minute. Per `rules/review-artefact-routing.md`, never write to the project root. 2. **Stamp `reviews/INDEX.md`:** ```bash bash /_shared/review-state-log.sh \ --check devils-advocate \ --paper "" \ --verdict "" \ --open-issues "/" \ --report "reviews//devils-advocate/.md" \ --notes "" \ [--trigger "review-cluster|pre-submission-report"] ``` - **Verdict:** `PASS` if no critiques survive adjudication (all dismissed); `ISSUES FOUND` otherwise. - **Open issues:** surviving critiques (Critical+Major+Minor) over total raised in Round 1. - **Trigger:** pass an orchestrator name only if invoked via `review-cluster` or `pre-submission-report`; otherwise omit. Skip stamping only for **non-paper use** (challenging a bare argument with no project context) or **single-shot mode** on a paragraph — then the report stays inline. Schema: the installed shared resource `shared/review-state-schema.md`. ## Single-Shot Mode For quick checks (e.g., "just poke holes in this argument"), skip the multi-turn protocol and produce a direct critique. Use when the user says "quick", "just challenge this", or the input is a paragraph rather than a full paper. ## Example Use "Play devil's advocate on my research paper about preference drift - specifically challenge my identification strategy and the assumptions about utility functions." --- ## Council Mode (Optional) For the highest-stakes arguments, run the debate across multiple LLM providers — different models have genuinely different reasoning patterns, producing adversarial tension a single model cannot replicate. Each model plays Adversarial Critic, cross-reviews the others, and a chairman ranks surviving critiques by cross-model agreement. **Trigger:** "council devil's advocate" / "thorough challenge". Full orchestration + invocation: [`../shared/council-protocol.md`](../shared/council-protocol.md). **Value:** High — the multi-turn debate becomes genuinely adversarial when different models play different roles. A critique that survives cross-model scrutiny is almost certainly a real weakness. ## Cross-References | Skill | When to use instead/alongside | |-------|-------------------------------| | `interview-me` | To develop the idea further through structured interview | | `multi-perspective` | For multi-perspective analysis with disciplinary diversity | | `proofread` | For language/formatting review rather than argument critique |