SKILL.md

name: devils-advocate description: "Use before design phase to challenge assumptions and surface risks"

Invariant Principles

Untested assumptions become production bugs. Every claim needs evidence or explicit "unvalidated" flag.
Vague scope enables scope creep. Boundaries must be testable, not interpretive.
Optimistic architecture fails at scale. Every design decision needs "what if 10x/failure/deprecated" analysis.
Undocumented failure modes become incidents. Every integration needs explicit failure handling.
Unmeasured success is unfalsifiable. Metrics require numbers, baselines, percentiles.

Applicability

Use	Skip
Understanding/design doc complete	Active user discovery
"Challenge this" request	Code review (use code-reviewer)
Before architectural decision	Implementation validation (use fact-checking)

Inputs

Input	Required	Description
`document_path`	Yes	Path to understanding or design document to review
`focus_areas`	No	Specific areas to prioritize (e.g., "security", "scalability")
`known_constraints`	No	Constraints already accepted (skip challenging these)

Outputs

Output	Type	Description
`review_document`	Inline	Structured review following Output Format template
`issue_count`	Inline	Summary counts: critical, major, minor
`readiness_verdict`	Inline	READY, NEEDS WORK, or NOT READY assessment

Review Protocol

Required Sections (flag missing as CRITICAL)

Problem statement, research findings, architecture, scope, assumptions, integrations, success criteria, edge cases, glossary.

Challenge Categories

Category	Classification	Challenges
Assumptions	VALIDATED/UNVALIDATED/IMPLICIT/CONTRADICTORY	Evidence sufficient? Current? What if wrong? What disproves?
Scope	Vague language? Creep vectors?	MVP ship without excluded? Users expect? Similar code supports?
Architecture	Rationale specific or generic?	10x scale? System fails? Dep deprecated? Matches codebase?
Integration	Interface documented? Stable?	System down? Unexpected data? Slow? Auth fails? Circular deps?
Success Criteria	Has number? Measurable?	Baseline? p50/p95/p99? Monitored how?
Edge Cases	Boundary, failure, security	Empty/max/invalid? Network/partial/cascade? Auth bypass? Injection?
Vocabulary	Overloaded? Matches code?	Context-dependent meanings? Synonyms to unify? Two devs interpret same?

Challenge Template

[ITEM]: "[quoted from doc]"
- Classification: [type]
- Evidence: [provided or NONE]
- What if wrong: [failure impact]
- Similar code: [reference or N/A]
- VERDICT: [finding + recommendation]

Output Format

# Devil's Advocate Review: [Feature]

## Executive Summary
[2-3 sentences: critical count, major risks, overall assessment]

## Critical Issues (Block Design Phase)

### Issue N: [Title]
- **Category:** [from challenge categories]
- **Finding:** [what is wrong]
- **Evidence:** [doc sections, codebase refs]
- **Impact:** [what breaks]
- **Recommendation:** [specific action]

## Major Risks (Proceed with Caution)

### Risk N: [Title]
[Same format + Mitigation]

## Minor Issues
- [Issue]: [Finding] -> [Recommendation]

## Validation Summary

| Area | Total | Strong | Weak | Flagged |
|------|-------|--------|------|---------|
| Assumptions | N | X | Y | Z |
| Scope | N | justified | - | questionable |
| Architecture | N | well-justified | - | needs rationale |
| Integrations | N | failure documented | - | missing |
| Edge cases | N | covered | - | recommended |

## Overall Assessment
**Readiness:** READY | NEEDS WORK | NOT READY
**Confidence:** HIGH | MEDIUM | LOW
**Blocking Issues:** [N]

Self-Check

<FINAL_EMPHASIS> Every passed assumption = production bug. Every vague requirement = scope creep. Every unexamined edge case = 3am incident. Thorough. Skeptical. Relentless. </FINAL_EMPHASIS>

スコア

総合スコア

60/100

リポジトリの品質指標に基づく評価

✓SKILL.md

SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている

+20

✓LICENSE

ライセンスが設定されている

+10

○説明文

100文字以上の説明がある

0/10

○人気

GitHub Stars 100以上

0/15

○最近の活動

3ヶ月以内に更新がある

0/10

○フォーク

10回以上フォークされている

0/5

✓Issue管理

オープンIssueが50未満

+5

✓言語

プログラミング言語が設定されている

+5

○タグ

1つ以上のタグが設定されている

0/5

レビュー

💬

レビュー機能は近日公開予定です