The Fool: poke holes in my plan before I commit

by https://github.com/Jeffallan · MIT license · ★ 11,565 on GitHub · updated Aug 7

Poke Holes In My Plan Before I Commit cover

The Fool is a free Claude skill by Jeffallan that argues against your plan before you commit to it. Claude restates your position, lets you pick one of five modes, including pre-mortem, red team and evidence audit, then presents the three to five strongest challenges and ends with a strengthened version of the plan.

---
name: the-fool
description: Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.
license: MIT
metadata:
  author: https://github.com/Jeffallan
  version: "1.0.0"
  domain: workflow
  triggers: play the fool, devil's advocate, challenge this, stress test, poke holes, what could go wrong, red team, pre-mortem, test my assumptions
  role: expert
  scope: review
  output-format: report
  related-skills: architecture-designer, code-reviewer, feature-forge
---

# The Fool

The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.

Overview

The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.

What you get

  • Steelmanned thesisThe user's position restated in its strongest form
  • Challenges3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
  • User responseSpace for the user to engage before synthesis
  • SynthesisStrengthened position integrating the challenges
  • Next stepsOffer a second pass with a different mode if warranted
Manual install (npx, ZIP)
Claude Codenpx skills add Jeffallan/claude-skills --skill the-fool -g -a claude-code
Claude Code (manual)mkdir -p ~/.claude/skills && curl -sL https://codeload.github.com/Jeffallan/claude-skills/tar.gz/882ef55e377d \ | tar -xz -C ~/.claude/skills --strip-components=2 claude-skills-882ef55e377d/skills/the-fool
Windows (PowerShell)New-Item -ItemType Directory -Force "$HOME\.claude\skills" | Out-Null; Invoke-WebRequest "https://m.agentalley.io/zip/21ea31e120bb582af299/the-fool.zip" -OutFile "$env:TEMP\the-fool.zip"; Expand-Archive "$env:TEMP\the-fool.zip" -DestinationPath "$HOME\.claude\skills" -Force
Claude.ai / desktopDownload the ZIP and upload it under Settings → Capabilities → Skills.
Codex, Cursor, other agentsPoint them at SKILL.md. The other files are plain text.

Connects with Agent Alley MCP · agentalley.io/mcp

Files included

  • SKILL.md6.1 KB
  • references/6 files · 39.1 KB
Read the files here
Jeffallan/882ef557 files
SKILL.md
Show the full text123 lines

The Fool

The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.

When to Use This Skill

  • Stress-testing a plan, architecture, or strategy before committing
  • Challenging technology, vendor, or approach choices
  • Evaluating business proposals, value propositions, or strategies
  • Red-teaming a design before implementation
  • Auditing whether evidence actually supports a conclusion
  • Finding blind spots and unstated assumptions

Core Workflow

  1. Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
  2. Select — Use AskUserQuestion with two-step mode selection (see below).
  3. Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
  4. Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
  5. Synthesize — Integrate insights into a strengthened position. Offer a second pass with a different mode.

Mode Selection

Use AskUserQuestion to let the user choose how to challenge their idea.

Step 1 — Pick a category (4 options):

Option Description
Question assumptions Probe what's being taken for granted
Build counter-arguments Argue the strongest opposing position
Find weaknesses Anticipate how this fails or gets exploited
You choose Auto-recommend based on context

Step 2 — Refine mode (only when the category maps to 2 modes):

  • "Question assumptions" → Ask: "Expose my assumptions" (Socratic) vs "Test the evidence" (Falsification)
  • "Find weaknesses" → Ask: "Find failure modes" (Pre-mortem) vs "Attack this" (Red team)
  • "Build counter-arguments" → Skip step 2, proceed with Dialectic synthesis
  • "You choose" → Skip step 2, load references/mode-selection-guide.md and auto-recommend

5 Reasoning Modes

Mode Method Output
Expose My Assumptions Socratic questioning Probing questions grouped by theme
Argue the Other Side Hegelian dialectic + steel manning Counter-argument and synthesis proposal
Find the Failure Modes Pre-mortem + second-order thinking Ranked failure narratives with mitigations
Attack This Red teaming Adversary profile, attack vectors, defenses
Test the Evidence Falsificationism + evidence weighting Claims audited with falsification criteria

Reference Guide

Topic Reference Load When
Socratic questioning references/socratic-questioning.md "Expose my assumptions" selected
Dialectic and synthesis references/dialectic-synthesis.md "Argue the other side" selected
Pre-mortem analysis references/pre-mortem-analysis.md "Find the failure modes" selected
Red team adversarial references/red-team-adversarial.md "Attack this" selected
Evidence audit references/evidence-audit.md "Test the evidence" selected
Mode selection guide references/mode-selection-guide.md "You choose" selected or auto-recommend needed

Constraints

MUST DO
  • Steelman the thesis before challenging it (restate in strongest form)
  • Use AskUserQuestion for mode selection — never assume which mode
  • Ground challenges in specific, concrete reasoning (not vague "what ifs")
  • Maintain intellectual honesty — concede points that hold up
  • Drive toward synthesis or actionable output (never leave just objections)
  • Limit challenges to 3-5 strongest points (depth over breadth)
  • Ask user to engage with challenges before synthesizing
MUST NOT DO
  • Strawman the user's position
  • Generate challenges for the sake of disagreement
  • Be nihilistic or purely destructive
  • Stack minor objections to create false impression of weakness
  • Skip synthesis (never leave the user with just a pile of problems)
  • Override domain expertise with generic skepticism
  • Output mode selection as plain text when AskUserQuestion can provide structured options

Output Templates

Each mode produces a structured deliverable. See the corresponding reference file for the full template.

Mode Deliverable
Expose My Assumptions Assumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments
Argue the Other Side Steelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating
Find the Failure Modes Ranked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check
Attack This Adversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses
Test the Evidence Claims extracted + falsification criteria + evidence grades + competing explanations

After any mode, the final output must include:

  1. Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
  2. Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
  3. User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
  4. Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
  5. Next steps — Offer a second pass with a different mode if warranted

Knowledge Reference

Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, steel manning, pre-mortem analysis, red teaming, falsificationism, abductive reasoning, second-order thinking, cognitive biases, inversion technique

Documentation

1---
2name: the-fool
3description: Use when challenging ideas, plans, decisions, or proposals using structured critical reasoning. Invoke to play devil's advocate, run a pre-mortem, red team, or audit evidence and assumptions.
4license: MIT
5metadata:
6 author: https://github.com/Jeffallan
7 version: "1.0.0"
8 domain: workflow
9 triggers: play the fool, devil's advocate, challenge this, stress test, poke holes, what could go wrong, red team, pre-mortem, test my assumptions
10 role: expert
11 scope: review
12 output-format: report
13 related-skills: architecture-designer, code-reviewer, feature-forge
14---
15 
16# The Fool
17 
18The court jester who alone could speak truth to the king. Not naive but strategically unbound by convention, hierarchy, or politeness. Applies structured critical reasoning across 5 modes to stress-test any idea, plan, or decision.
19 
20## When to Use This Skill
21 
22- Stress-testing a plan, architecture, or strategy before committing
23- Challenging technology, vendor, or approach choices
24- Evaluating business proposals, value propositions, or strategies
25- Red-teaming a design before implementation
26- Auditing whether evidence actually supports a conclusion
27- Finding blind spots and unstated assumptions
28 
29## Core Workflow
30 
311. **Identify** — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
322. **Select** — Use `AskUserQuestion` with two-step mode selection (see below).
333. **Challenge** — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
344. **Engage** — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
355. **Synthesize** — Integrate insights into a strengthened position. Offer a second pass with a different mode.
36 
37## Mode Selection
38 
39Use `AskUserQuestion` to let the user choose how to challenge their idea.
40 
41**Step 1 — Pick a category** (4 options):
42 
43| Option | Description |
44|--------|-------------|
45| Question assumptions | Probe what's being taken for granted |
46| Build counter-arguments | Argue the strongest opposing position |
47| Find weaknesses | Anticipate how this fails or gets exploited |
48| You choose | Auto-recommend based on context |
49 
50**Step 2 — Refine mode** (only when the category maps to 2 modes):
51 
52- "Question assumptions" → Ask: "Expose my assumptions" (Socratic) vs "Test the evidence" (Falsification)
53- "Find weaknesses" → Ask: "Find failure modes" (Pre-mortem) vs "Attack this" (Red team)
54- "Build counter-arguments" → Skip step 2, proceed with Dialectic synthesis
55- "You choose" → Skip step 2, load `references/mode-selection-guide.md` and auto-recommend
56 
57## 5 Reasoning Modes
58 
59| Mode | Method | Output |
60|------|--------|--------|
61| Expose My Assumptions | Socratic questioning | Probing questions grouped by theme |
62| Argue the Other Side | Hegelian dialectic + steel manning | Counter-argument and synthesis proposal |
63| Find the Failure Modes | Pre-mortem + second-order thinking | Ranked failure narratives with mitigations |
64| Attack This | Red teaming | Adversary profile, attack vectors, defenses |
65| Test the Evidence | Falsificationism + evidence weighting | Claims audited with falsification criteria |
66 
67## Reference Guide
68 
69| Topic | Reference | Load When |
70|-------|-----------|-----------|
71| Socratic questioning | `references/socratic-questioning.md` | "Expose my assumptions" selected |
72| Dialectic and synthesis | `references/dialectic-synthesis.md` | "Argue the other side" selected |
73| Pre-mortem analysis | `references/pre-mortem-analysis.md` | "Find the failure modes" selected |
74| Red team adversarial | `references/red-team-adversarial.md` | "Attack this" selected |
75| Evidence audit | `references/evidence-audit.md` | "Test the evidence" selected |
76| Mode selection guide | `references/mode-selection-guide.md` | "You choose" selected or auto-recommend needed |
77 
78## Constraints
79 
80### MUST DO
81- Steelman the thesis before challenging it (restate in strongest form)
82- Use `AskUserQuestion` for mode selection — never assume which mode
83- Ground challenges in specific, concrete reasoning (not vague "what ifs")
84- Maintain intellectual honesty — concede points that hold up
85- Drive toward synthesis or actionable output (never leave just objections)
86- Limit challenges to 3-5 strongest points (depth over breadth)
87- Ask user to engage with challenges before synthesizing
88 
89### MUST NOT DO
90- Strawman the user's position
91- Generate challenges for the sake of disagreement
92- Be nihilistic or purely destructive
93- Stack minor objections to create false impression of weakness
94- Skip synthesis (never leave the user with just a pile of problems)
95- Override domain expertise with generic skepticism
96- Output mode selection as plain text when `AskUserQuestion` can provide structured options
97 
98## Output Templates
99 
100Each mode produces a structured deliverable. See the corresponding reference file for the full template.
101 
102| Mode | Deliverable |
103|------|------------|
104| Expose My Assumptions | Assumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments |
105| Argue the Other Side | Steelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating |
106| Find the Failure Modes | Ranked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check |
107| Attack This | Adversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses |
108| Test the Evidence | Claims extracted + falsification criteria + evidence grades + competing explanations |
109 
110After any mode, the final output must include:
111 
1121. **Steelmanned thesis** — The user's position restated in its strongest form
1132. **Challenges** — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
1143. **User response** — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
1154. **Synthesis** — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
1165. **Next steps** — Offer a second pass with a different mode if warranted
117 
118## Knowledge Reference
119 
120Socratic method, Hegelian dialectic, steel manning, pre-mortem analysis, red teaming, falsificationism, abductive reasoning, second-order thinking, cognitive biases, inversion technique
121 
122[Documentation](https://jeffallan.github.io/claude-skills/skills/workflow/the-fool/)
123 
View all files on GitHub →

Details

Updated
Aug 7, 2026
License
MIT
Stars on the repo
★ 11,565
Checked
Source
Jeffallan/claude-skills ↗
Creator
https://github.com/Jeffallan · 1 listing
View creator

Similar skills

See all →
SkillTurns an answer into a one-page visual HTML explainerAnswer me with HTML: answer a complex question with one HTML pageQingYunA/answer-me-with-html · by QingYunATurns an answer into a one-page visual HTML explainer: the model writes a short Markdown draft and the bundled CLI builds one page. Use it proactively and liberally, without being asked, whenever a page would help the reader more than plain text, even if plain text would also work: any explanation of how something works or how parts relate (flow, request path, architecture, code or folder structure, state machine, lifecycle, history); any comparison, trade-off or decision with pros and cons; any diagnosis, review or investigation, especially with several causes or findings to rank; any answer with a table, a numbered or ranked list, steps, branches or several sections; or when the user says "I don't get it / draw it / explain visually / 讲讲原理 / 没看懂 / 画个图". When in doubt, use it: a page is quick and cheap to make. Also for explainer videos ("make a video", "做个视频") and for changing its settings. Skip only for small talk, a trivial one-line answer, or when the user asks for plain text.★ 3.7k GitHub starsSkillPrepare and validate research-only clinical decision-supportClinical Decision-Support Research and EvaluationK-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills · by K-Dense-AIPrepare and validate research-only clinical decision-support evaluation, evidence-profile, cohort, survival, biomarker/model, privacy, and governance artifacts. Use for aggregate or synthetic research documentation and traceability—not patient care or live clinical operation.★ 46k GitHub starsSkillHand in a decision you're stuck onTough Decision Advisor: Every Angle ConsideredK-Dense-AI/scientific-agent-skills · by K-Dense-AIHand in a decision you're stuck on. Get back a clear breakdown of every angle — the trade-offs, the risks, the blind spot, and a recommended path.★ 46k GitHub starsSkillWrite and maintain Architecture Decision Records followingwshobson/agents · by wshobsonWrite and maintain Architecture Decision Records (ADRs) following best practices for technical decision documentation. Use when documenting significant technical decisions, reviewing past architectural choices, or establishing decision processes.★ 39.9k GitHub starsSkillRun a pre-mortem risk analysis on a PRD or launch planPre-Mortem: Risk Analysis for Product Launchphuryn/pm-skills · by phurynRun a pre-mortem risk analysis on a PRD or launch plan. Categorizes risks as Tigers (real problems), Paper Tigers (overblown concerns), and Elephants (unspoken worries), then classifies as launch-blocking, fast-follow, or track. Use when preparing for launch, stress-testing a product plan, or identifying what could go wrong.★ 26.6k GitHub starsSkill/cs:cdo-review <plan/cs:cdo-review — CDO Forcing Questionsalirezarezvani/claude-skills · by alirezarezvani/cs:cdo-review <plan> — Decision-driven Chief Data Officer interrogation of any plan that touches training data, data architecture, data productization, or data team hiring. Use when validating training-data rights before model work, choosing warehouse vs lakehouse vs mesh, or valuing data assets for productization or M&A.★ 26.3k GitHub stars