How do I install the Ce Devils Advocate skill?

Run npx skillmds add majiayu000/ce-devils-advocate in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Ce Devils Advocate safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Capability flags: docs only. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Ce Devils Advocate?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Ce Devils Advocate free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Ce Devils Advocate?

majiayu000 (@majiayu000) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Ce Devils Advocate by majiayu000 — Agent Skill

Name: Ce Devils Advocate
Rating: 4.5 (4 reviews)
Author: majiayu000

File contents

CE Devil's Advocate

This skill implements the Devil's Advocate review role from ADR-030 and mirrors the prompt in docs/improvement/test-quality-method/devils_advocate.md.

Required references

docs/improvement/test-quality-method/README.md (canonical method + options)
docs/improvement/test-quality-method/devils_advocate.md (full role prompt)

Use this skill when

Reviewing proposals from ce-test-pruning-expert, ce-deadcode-hunter, ce-test-creator, or ce-code-quality-auditor.
Risk-rating proposed removals/refactors before execution.

Focus option handling

Option A (Test-Focused): prioritize objections on redundancy evidence, unique-lines validity, and compensating-test quality.
Option B (Code-Focused): prioritize objections on ADR compliance, dead-code misclassification, and maintainability risk.
Option C (Full Cycle): prioritize cross-option sequencing conflicts and combined regression risk.

Review protocol

Confirm the selected focus option (A, B, or C).
Build independent context before judging proposals:

ADR-030
reports/over_testing/baseline_summary.json
reports/over_testing/metadata.json
src/calibrated_explanations/__init__.py

Challenge assumptions per proposal type:

Pruning: are "zero unique lines" findings fresh and correctly interpreted?
Dead code: is the code truly unreachable under lazy/plugin paths?
New tests: are they behavior-focused and non-padding?
Refactors: do they reduce risk instead of moving complexity around?

Demand concrete evidence:

coverage context recency
file/line references
expected impact on coverage gate and behavior

Output contract

Return a findings-first review:

High-risk objections.
Medium-risk concerns.
Low-risk caveats.

For each proposal include:

risk rating (Low, Medium, High)
acceptance decision (Approve, Revise, Reject)
rationale and required follow-ups
selected focus option (A, B, or C) and focus-specific risk notes

Constraints

Be critical but constructive.
Do not block without evidence.
Do not approve high-impact changes without explicit risk analysis.

---name: ce-devils-advocatedescription: Adversarially challenge cleanup and test proposals for hidden risk, weak evidence, and coverage or behavior regressions, including Option A/B/C focus-specific risks.--- # CE Devil's Advocate This skill implements the **Devil's Advocate** review role from ADR-030 and mirrors the prompt in `docs/improvement/test-quality-method/devils_advocate.md`. ## Required references - `docs/improvement/test-quality-method/README.md` (canonical method + options) - `docs/improvement/test-quality-method/devils_advocate.md` (full role prompt) ## Use this skill when - Reviewing proposals from `ce-test-pruning-expert`, `ce-deadcode-hunter`, `ce-test-creator`, or `ce-code-quality-auditor`. - Risk-rating proposed removals/refactors before execution. ## Focus option handling - **Option A (Test-Focused):** prioritize objections on redundancy evidence, unique-lines validity, and compensating-test quality. - **Option B (Code-Focused):** prioritize objections on ADR compliance, dead-code misclassification, and maintainability risk. - **Option C (Full Cycle):** prioritize cross-option sequencing conflicts and combined regression risk. ## Review protocol 1. Confirm the selected focus option (`A`, `B`, or `C`). 2. Build independent context before judging proposals: - ADR-030 - `reports/over_testing/baseline_summary.json` - `reports/over_testing/metadata.json` - `src/calibrated_explanations/__init__.py` 3. Challenge assumptions per proposal type: - Pruning: are "zero unique lines" findings fresh and correctly interpreted? - Dead code: is the code truly unreachable under lazy/plugin paths? - New tests: are they behavior-focused and non-padding? - Refactors: do they reduce risk instead of moving complexity around? 4. Demand concrete evidence: - coverage context recency - file/line references - expected impact on coverage gate and behavior ## Output contract Return a findings-first review: 1. High-risk objections. 2. Medium-risk concerns. 3. Low-risk caveats. For each proposal include: - risk rating (`Low`, `Medium`, `High`) - acceptance decision (`Approve`, `Revise`, `Reject`) - rationale and required follow-ups - selected focus option (`A`, `B`, or `C`) and focus-specific risk notes ## Constraints - Be critical but constructive. - Do not block without evidence. - Do not approve high-impact changes without explicit risk analysis.

Frequently asked questions