git:20260727.7ba66d5 to git:20260819.8428185

---

name: devils-advocate

description: Adversarially review a research artifact (`<topic-slug>-survey.md`) or a user-supplied claim. Searches for counter-evidence, names the strongest objections, and routes each to a verdict — either a confidence-rating downgrade or a do-not-resolve verdict for an irreducible tension where both sides are well-evidenced under different conditions. Grounded in ACH (evidence-against column — the discipline that catches premature closure) and GIJN investigative-journalism practice ("what does the other side say"). Auto-invoked by `/desk-research` deep mode against `<topic-slug>-survey.md`; runs standalone against any user-supplied claim. Produces `<topic-slug>-counterpoints.md` linking back to the source artifact. Depth cues — `quickly`, `top three`, `briefly`, `summary only` for the strongest objections; `comprehensively`, `exhaustively`, `in depth`, `extensive` for the full set.

---

# /devils-advocate

The adversarial review pass. Reads a finding, an artifact, or a claim,

and tries to take it down with cited counter-evidence.

## Output rendering

Severity list — Lead each finding with a severity glyph — 🟥 blocker, 🟧 major, 🟨 minor, ⚪ advisory — worst first, one finding per line, file:line anchor aligned.

## When to invoke

- **Auto-invoked** by `/desk-research` deep mode against `<topic-slug>-survey.md`.

- **Standalone** against a user-supplied claim ("argue against this

finding"). The skill body handles both invocations.

- **In the decision pipeline**, against `<topic-slug>-hypotheses.md` to surface

the counter-evidence each hypothesis must answer.

## Invocation shapes

This skill runs in two shapes:

- **Pipeline invocation** — expects a target artifact in the working

directory (`<topic-slug>-survey.md` from `/desk-research`, or

`<topic-slug>-hypotheses.md` from `/compare-hypotheses`). The artifact's

findings are the input set.

- **Standalone invocation** — targets a user-supplied claim. The user

supplies the claim explicitly; no upstream artifact is required.

## Methodology

Two convergent disciplines:

1. **ACH evidence-against column** — Analysis of Competing Hypotheses

forces the analyst to list evidence *against* each hypothesis,

alongside evidence for. The discipline catches premature closure:

the model finds three supporting sources, stops, declares done. ACH

refuses that move.

2. **GIJN investigative-journalism practice** — Global Investigative

Journalism Network's standard rule: before publication, ask "what

does the other side say?" and seek it out. The pack borrows the

*seek-the-other-side* discipline as a final-step gate.

## Procedure

would a serious critic say? Generate the strongest version of the

objection, not the weakest.

subagent against each counter-position. The main session does the

reasoning; the subagent supplies the material.

finding whose evidence-against is substantive, pick one of two

verdicts:

- **Rating downgrade** — the evidence-against weakens the finding:

propose the new confidence rating (`[high]` → `[moderate]`, or

`[moderate]` → `[low]`, etc., per `references/confidence-schema.md`)

and name the downgrade factor. This is the default verdict.

- **Do-not-resolve** — the evidence-against does *not* weaken the

finding; it establishes a credible *opposing* position that is

itself well-evidenced, so the finding and its counter are both

right under different conditions. See *The do-not-resolve verdict*

below. Reach for this only when a downgrade would misrepresent the

situation.

uncited counter-material and consider one more query from the

highest-signal unused snippet (Co-STORM contribution).

artifact. `<topic-slug>` matches the survey it reviews; the naming rule

lives in the `/desk-research` skill body (§ Typed, topic-named artifacts).

## The do-not-resolve verdict

A rating downgrade says *"trust this finding less — the evidence is

weaker than it was rated."* It is the right verdict when the

counter-evidence undercuts the finding: a single source where three

were claimed, an unaccounted contested-in-field factor, a benchmark

that doesn't replicate.

But sometimes the counter-evidence is not a weakness in the finding —

it is a credible, well-evidenced position that *opposes* it, and both

survive scrutiny because they are right under **different conditions**.

The disagreement is in the world, not in a gap in the evidence.

Downgrading the finding here is wrong twice over: it implies the

finding is shaky (it isn't), and it implies that more evidence would

settle the question (it won't). The honest verdict is **do-not-resolve**:

name the productive tension, state the conditions under which each side

holds, and leave both standing.

Use the test: *would more or better evidence collapse this to one

answer?* If yes, it is a confidence question — downgrade. If no — if

the two positions are answers to subtly different questions, or hold in

different regimes — it is an irreducible tension, and you record it

rather than adjudicate it. Do-not-resolve is the `/devils-advocate`

counterpart to the tension map `/identify-perspectives` builds upstream:

the same irreducibility, surfaced adversarially against a finding rather

than enumerated across camps.

Do-not-resolve is **not** an escape hatch for "the evidence is thin so I

won't commit." Thin evidence is `[uncertain]` (a `/desk-research` rating) or

a known-unknown (a `/desk-research` gap entry) — not a tension. A

do-not-resolve verdict requires *substantive evidence on both sides*.

## `<topic-slug>-counterpoints.md` output schema

```markdown

# Counterpoints — <target artifact or claim>

## Finding: <quoted from target>

- **Counter-position:** <strongest objection, one paragraph>.

- **Counter-evidence:** <citations>.

- **Verdict:** rating downgrade — `[high]` → `[moderate]`. Reason:

contested-in-field.

## Finding: <next>

- **Counter-position:** <a credible, well-evidenced opposing position>.

- **Counter-evidence:** <citations — substantive, on both sides>.

- **Verdict:** do-not-resolve. Both hold under different conditions:

<finding> holds when <conditions>; <counter-position> holds when

<conditions>. More evidence would not collapse this to one answer.

```

The `Verdict` line carries exactly one of the two outcomes from step 4 —

a rating downgrade *or* do-not-resolve, never both for the same finding.

## Citation discipline

Every counter-evidence claim carries a citation. A counter-position

that the model invents without cited backing is marked `[inference]`

and tagged as such in the counterpoints.

## Depth cues

- `quickly`, `top three`, `briefly`, `summary only` — return the

strongest one or two objections per finding only.

- `comprehensively`, `exhaustively`, `in depth`, `extensive` —

enumerate every credible counter-position; include weaker objections

for completeness.