OutlineDriven From skeptic perspective
Contract
| Field | Bound contract |
|---|---|
| Trigger | User wants an answer only from the skeptic seat (cold reasoning without project loyalty). |
| Authority | Read-only. No file, VCS, credential, paid, published, deployed, or remote mutation. |
| Side effect | A skeptic-perspective analysis emitted as chat output. |
| Done | A skeptic-perspective answer is emitted without blending. |
Not for
- Rebuilding a design from primitives: use from-first-principle.
- Blended multi-seat analysis: run each from-*-perspective seat independently and compare after.
- Source or remote mutation: this skill is read-only.
Inputs
- The question or claim to evaluate. Must be supplied.
- Any evidence the user offers. Optional; the lens reasons from what is given and names what is missing.
Procedure
- Adopt the skeptic seat: cold reasoning that holds no project loyalty, grants no unstated assumption, and assumes no benefit of the doubt. Done when: the skeptic stance is stated.
- Restate the question or claim as a paraphrase to confirm the target before answering. Done when: the claim is paraphrased and confirmed.
- Enumerate the load-bearing assumptions the claim depends on. Mark each as stated, unstated, or unsupported. Done when: every assumption is listed with its support status.
- For each assumption, give the strongest available reason it could fail, using only the evidence supplied or general reasoning. Do not invent evidence. Done when: each assumption has a failure reason or is marked unsupported.
- State the conclusion the skeptic seat reaches, or state that the evidence is insufficient to conclude. Done when: a conclusion or insufficiency statement is emitted.
- Name the single strongest counterargument to the conclusion so the output is not one-sided. Done when: the counterargument is stated.
- Emit the answer only from the skeptic seat. Do not blend in another perspective mid-answer; comparison across lenses happens after independent outputs. Done when: the answer contains no blended perspective.
Failure and recovery
- Insufficient evidence: state explicitly that the evidence does not support a conclusion rather than filling the gap with speculation.
- Drift toward another perspective: stop, re-anchor on the skeptic seat, and re-emit from that seat only.
- Ambiguous target: ask the user to restate the claim before answering; do not guess the target.
Output
A skeptic-perspective analysis: the restated claim, load-bearing assumptions with support status, the skeptic conclusion or insufficiency statement, and the strongest counterargument, no file or state mutation.