Steelman Skill
Generate rigorous, intellectually honest steelman and strawman analyses — grounded in real evidence, not caricature or wishful thinking.
When This Skill Applies
Use this skill for any request involving:
- Explicit keywords: steelman, strawman, devil's advocate, argue both sides, strongest case for/against
- Stress-testing a belief, plan, or decision the user is considering
- "Is this a good idea?" — when the user clearly wants honest critical analysis
- Comparing opposing viewpoints on a topic (policy, science, business, philosophy, etc.)
Core Principles
- Intellectual honesty above all. The steelman must be the strongest possible case FOR — not a softened version. The strawman (confusingly named) here means the strongest case AGAINST — not a weak caricature. Both must be argued as if you actually believed them.
- Evidence over assertion. Anchor claims in real data, named examples, historical precedent, or credible expert consensus. Avoid vague gestures ("studies show…") without specifics.
- No motivated reasoning. Don't subtly favor one side. The reader should not be able to tell which side you personally agree with.
- Actionable validation. The VALIDATION section must give the user concrete things they can do — search terms, datasets, experiments, books, institutions — to verify claims independently.
Output Format
Structure every response exactly as follows:
🟢 STEELMAN: The Strongest Case FOR [Topic]
Present the most compelling, well-supported arguments in favor. Include:
- The core logical/empirical argument
- Supporting evidence, data, or real-world examples
- Who the strongest proponents are and why thoughtful people believe this
- The underlying values or assumptions that make this view coherent
🔴 STRAWMAN: The Strongest Case AGAINST [Topic]
Present the most compelling, well-supported arguments against. Include:
- The core logical/empirical counterargument
- Contradicting evidence, failure cases, or real-world counterexamples
- Who the strongest critics are and why thoughtful people reject this
- What hidden assumptions or risks the pro-side tends to underweight
🔍 VALIDATION
Answer these four questions:
What would prove the STEELMAN right?
(Specific evidence, outcomes, or conditions that would confirm the pro-side)
What would prove the STRAWMAN right?
(Specific evidence, outcomes, or conditions that would confirm the anti-side)
How to verify these claims:
Give 3–5 concrete, actionable research steps:
- Named books, papers, or reports to read
- Specific databases, statistics, or datasets to consult
- Institutions, organizations, or experts to look into
- Search queries or questions to investigate
- Experiments or tests the user could run themselves
Quality Checklist (self-review before responding)
Before finalizing your response, verify:
Example Topics (to calibrate scope)
This skill applies equally to:
- Policy: "Universal Basic Income", "rent control", "open borders"
- Science/tech: "longevity research will extend human lifespan significantly", "nuclear energy is safe"
- Business/strategy: "Should our startup go freemium?", "Is remote work better for productivity?"
- Philosophy/ethics: "Moral relativism is correct", "Effective Altruism as a framework"
- Personal decisions: "Should I quit my job to start a company?", "Is this investment thesis sound?"
Handling Ambiguous or Loaded Topics
- For politically charged topics: present arguments from each side's own best thinkers, not how opponents characterize them.
- For empirically contested topics: clearly distinguish between scientific consensus vs. genuine expert debate vs. fringe views.
- For personal decisions: treat the user's context as the relevant "evidence" and ask a clarifying question if critical context is missing.
- If the topic is deeply context-dependent (e.g., "Should I take this job?"), briefly note what information would sharpen the analysis, then proceed with reasonable assumptions.
1---2name: steelman3description: Generate intellectually honest steelman and strawman analyses for any topic, claim, idea, policy, decision, or argument. Use this skill whenever the user asks for a "steelman", "strawman", "best/worst case for", "devil's advocate", "argue both sides", "strongest argument for/against", "pros and cons with evidence", or any phrasing like "help me think through [topic] critically." Also trigger when a user presents a position and wants to stress-test it, or asks "is this a good idea?" in a way that invites genuine critical analysis. The skill produces three structured sections: STEELMAN (strongest case FOR), STRAWMAN (strongest case AGAINST), and VALIDATION (how to verify each side).4---56# Steelman Skill78Generate rigorous, intellectually honest steelman and strawman analyses — grounded in real evidence, not caricature or wishful thinking.910---1112## When This Skill Applies1314Use this skill for any request involving:15- Explicit keywords: *steelman*, *strawman*, *devil's advocate*, *argue both sides*, *strongest case for/against*16- Stress-testing a belief, plan, or decision the user is considering17- "Is this a good idea?" — when the user clearly wants honest critical analysis18- Comparing opposing viewpoints on a topic (policy, science, business, philosophy, etc.)1920---2122## Core Principles23241. **Intellectual honesty above all.** The steelman must be the *strongest possible* case FOR — not a softened version. The strawman (confusingly named) here means the strongest case AGAINST — not a weak caricature. Both must be argued as if you actually believed them.252. **Evidence over assertion.** Anchor claims in real data, named examples, historical precedent, or credible expert consensus. Avoid vague gestures ("studies show…") without specifics.263. **No motivated reasoning.** Don't subtly favor one side. The reader should not be able to tell which side you personally agree with.274. **Actionable validation.** The VALIDATION section must give the user concrete things they can *do* — search terms, datasets, experiments, books, institutions — to verify claims independently.2829---3031## Output Format3233Structure every response exactly as follows:3435---3637### 🟢 STEELMAN: The Strongest Case FOR [Topic]3839Present the most compelling, well-supported arguments in favor. Include:40- The core logical/empirical argument41- Supporting evidence, data, or real-world examples42- Who the strongest proponents are and why thoughtful people believe this43- The underlying values or assumptions that make this view coherent4445---4647### 🔴 STRAWMAN: The Strongest Case AGAINST [Topic]4849Present the most compelling, well-supported arguments against. Include:50- The core logical/empirical counterargument51- Contradicting evidence, failure cases, or real-world counterexamples52- Who the strongest critics are and why thoughtful people reject this53- What hidden assumptions or risks the pro-side tends to underweight5455---5657### 🔍 VALIDATION5859Answer these four questions:6061**What would prove the STEELMAN right?**62(Specific evidence, outcomes, or conditions that would confirm the pro-side)6364**What would prove the STRAWMAN right?**65(Specific evidence, outcomes, or conditions that would confirm the anti-side)6667**How to verify these claims:**68Give 3–5 concrete, actionable research steps:69- Named books, papers, or reports to read70- Specific databases, statistics, or datasets to consult71- Institutions, organizations, or experts to look into72- Search queries or questions to investigate73- Experiments or tests the user could run themselves7475---7677## Quality Checklist (self-review before responding)7879Before finalizing your response, verify:80- [ ] Would a genuine believer of each position feel their view was represented fairly?81- [ ] Are claims backed by specifics (names, numbers, examples), not vague appeals?82- [ ] Is the VALIDATION section actually actionable — real sources, not platitudes?83- [ ] Is the tone neutral — no subtle editorializing or "both sides but actually one is right" framing?84- [ ] Are the strongest *actual* objections included, not just easy-to-dismiss ones?8586---8788## Example Topics (to calibrate scope)8990This skill applies equally to:91- **Policy**: "Universal Basic Income", "rent control", "open borders"92- **Science/tech**: "longevity research will extend human lifespan significantly", "nuclear energy is safe"93- **Business/strategy**: "Should our startup go freemium?", "Is remote work better for productivity?"94- **Philosophy/ethics**: "Moral relativism is correct", "Effective Altruism as a framework"95- **Personal decisions**: "Should I quit my job to start a company?", "Is this investment thesis sound?"9697---9899## Handling Ambiguous or Loaded Topics100101- For politically charged topics: present arguments from each side's *own* best thinkers, not how opponents characterize them.102- For empirically contested topics: clearly distinguish between scientific consensus vs. genuine expert debate vs. fringe views.103- For personal decisions: treat the user's context as the relevant "evidence" and ask a clarifying question if critical context is missing.104- If the topic is deeply context-dependent (e.g., "Should I take this job?"), briefly note what information would sharpen the analysis, then proceed with reasonable assumptions.
yantyx