the-fool
Skill0 starsChanged 6 months agoMITView on GitHub
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.
13 other projects use a version of this, 13 of them edited.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- santiago-migoni/claude-skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- AxlZero21/Skillsedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harnessedited, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- lsyamsiar/claude-skillsedited, first seen Nov 1, 2026
- hu465/claude-skills-edited, first seen Oct 25, 2026
- Anmolop97/Agent-Skillsedited, first seen Oct 20, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use receiving-code-review, ui-ux-pro-max and 1 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
CloudflareSkillreceiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions, especially if feedback seems unclear or technically questionable - requires technical rigor and verification, not performative agreement or blind implementation
Also in 3 projects that use this
StrayDragonSkillui-ux-pro-max
UI/UX design intelligence. 50 styles, 21 palettes, 50 font pairings, 20 charts, 8 stacks (React, Next.js, Vue, Svelte, SwiftUI, React Native, Flutter, Tailwind). Actions: plan, build, create, design, implement, review, fix, improve, optimize, enhance, refactor, check UI/UX code. Projects: website, landing page, dashboard, admin panel, e-commerce, SaaS, portfolio, blog, mobile app, .html, .tsx, .vue, .svelte. Elements: button, modal, navbar, sidebar, card, table, form, chart. Styles: glassmorphism, claymorphism, minimalism, brutalism, neumorphism, bento grid, dark mode, responsive, skeuomorphism, flat design. Topics: color palette, accessibility, animation, layout, typography, font pairing, spacing, hover, shadow, gradient.
Also in 3 projects that use this
BlockSkillfrontend-design
Create distinctive, production-grade frontend interfaces with high design quality. Use this skill when the user asks to build web components, pages, or applications. Generates creative, polished code that avoids generic AI aesthetics.
Also in 3 projects that use this
Other versions13 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 13
- Jeffallan/claude-skills★ 12k97% same
- kumaran-is/claude-code-onboarding★ 3592% same
- dirien/yet-another-agent-harness★ 19100% same
- kaustubhhiware/agent-skills-fullstack-development★ 16100% same
- PIXARTSeu/Synapse★ 9100% same
- zacklecon/claude-skills★ 3100% same
- strvcom/frontend-skills★ 228% same
- Anmolop97/Agent-Skills★ 127% same
- AxlZero21/Skills★ 197% same
- Ronnasayd/aipp★ 127% same
3 more not listed
Wrote their own version · 0
None found.
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
In this repository27 other files it gives its agents.
- code-reviewerSkill
- creativeSkill
- debugging-codeSkill
- feature-forgeSkill
- graphifySkill
- karpathy-guidelinesSkill
- market-adsSkill
- market-auditSkill
- market-brandSkill
- market-competitorsSkill
- market-copySkill
- market-emailsSkill
- market-funnelSkill
- market-landingSkill
- market-launchSkill
- market-proposalSkill
- market-report-pdfSkill
- market-reportSkill
- market-seoSkill
- marketSkill
- market-socialSkill
- notebooklmSkill
- playwright-skillSkill
- rag-architectSkill
- secure-code-guardianSkill
- spec-minerSkill
- using-git-worktreesSkill
The file
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
4 rules. 2 are common, 0 are distinctive, and 2 are very specific to this project.
2
Common
Most of the 13 edited versions we read keep these.
0
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
2
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Very specific: line 39
Use AskUserQuestion to let the user choose how to challenge their idea.
- Very specific: line 82
Use AskUserQuestion for mode selection — never assume which mode
- Common: line 87
Ask user to engage with challenges before synthesizing
- Common: line 110
After any mode, the final output must include:
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 13 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.
Files
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
- Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
- Select — Use
AskUserQuestionwith two-step mode selection (see below). - Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
- Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
- 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.mdand 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
AskUserQuestionfor 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
AskUserQuestioncan 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:
- Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
- Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
- User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
- Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
- 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
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.

