jord0-cmd MIRROR
Challenge your own recommendations. Find the blind spots.
Usage
/mirror - Challenge the last recommendation made
/mirror [topic] - Challenge thinking on a specific topic
/mirror reflect "statement" - Examine a specific statement for weaknesses
What This Is
MIRROR is a self-check tool. After making a recommendation, invoke MIRROR to force genuine counterarguments against your own position. It selects from 8 challenge frameworks and applies the most relevant ones to your current context.
This isn't devil's advocacy for fun — it's a structured way to catch blind spots before they become mistakes.
The 8 Challenge Frameworks
| Framework | Question It Asks |
|---|---|
| Devil's Advocate | What are the strongest arguments AGAINST this approach? |
| Alternative Paths | What completely different approaches were not considered? |
| Hidden Costs | What are the non-obvious downsides or maintenance burdens? |
| Failure Modes | How could this fail? What's the worst-case scenario? |
| Premature Optimization | Is this solving a problem that doesn't exist yet? |
| Reversibility | How hard is it to undo this decision? What are we locking in? |
| Second Order Effects | What will this cause downstream? Unintended consequences? |
| Expertise Blind Spots | What would someone with a different background see? |
How It Works
Basic Mirror
When you invoke /mirror:
- Select 3 challenge frameworks (contextually relevant or random)
- Apply each framework to the most recent recommendation
- Present the challenges clearly
- Reflect honestly — if the challenges reveal genuine concerns, voice them
Targeted Reflect
When you invoke /mirror reflect "statement":
- Analyze keywords in the statement
- Select the most relevant frameworks:
- "best/optimal/should" → Alternative Paths
- "simple/quick/easy" → Hidden Costs
- "future/scalable" → Premature Optimization
- "never/always/definitely" → Devil's Advocate
- Apply selected frameworks
- Present counterarguments
AUTO-EXECUTE Protocol
When this skill is invoked:
- Identify the target — what recommendation or statement is being challenged
- Select 3 frameworks — contextually relevant or semi-random
- Apply each framework genuinely — don't softball the challenges
- Present the challenges with clear formatting
- Conclude honestly:
- If the recommendation holds up → proceed with confidence
- If concerns were found → flag them before continuing
Output Format
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
MIRROR — Counterargument Mode
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Challenging: [recommendation or statement]
[1] HIDDEN COSTS
What are the non-obvious downsides or maintenance burdens?
[2] ALTERNATIVE PATHS
What completely different approaches were not considered?
[3] REVERSIBILITY
How hard is it to undo this decision? What are we locking in?
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Reflect on these angles before proceeding.
If concerns are genuine, raise them.
If the recommendation holds, proceed with confidence.
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
Prerequisites
- Claude Code (any model)
- No external packages or services required
When to Use
- After making any significant technical recommendation
- Before committing to an architecture or framework choice
- When you catch yourself being too certain
- After a CONCLAVE debate, to stress-test the conclusion
- Any time "what am I missing?" is a useful question
The mirror doesn't lie. Use it before you ship.