decision-critic

Here's the problem: LLMs are sycophants. They agree with you. They validate your reasoning. They tell you your architectural decision is sound and well-reasoned. That's not what you need for important decisions -- you need stress-testing.

The decision-critic skill forces structured adversarial analysis:

| Phase | Actions | | ------------- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | | Decomposition | Extract claims, assumptions, constraints; assign IDs; classify each | | Verification | Generate questions for verifiable items; answer independently; mark status | | Challenge | Steel-man argument against; explore alternative framings | | Synthesis | Verdict (STAND/REVISE/ESCALATE); summary and recommendation |

When to Use

Use this for decisions where you actually want criticism, not agreement:

• Architectural choices with long-term consequences
• Technology selection (language, framework, database)
• Tradeoffs between competing concerns (performance vs. maintainability)
• Decisions you're uncertain about and want stress-tested

Example Usage

I'm considering using Redis for our session storage instead of PostgreSQL.
My reasoning:

- Redis is faster for key-value lookups
- Sessions are ephemeral, don't need ACID guarantees
- We already have Redis for caching

Use your decision critic skill to stress-test this decision.

So what happens? The skill:

1. Decomposes the decision into claims (C1: Redis is faster), assumptions (A1: sessions don't need durability), constraints (K1: Redis already deployed)
2. Verifies each claim -- is Redis actually faster for your access pattern? What's the actual latency difference?
3. Challenges -- what if sessions DO need durability (shopping carts)? What's the operational cost of Redis failures?
4. Synthesizes -- verdict with specific failed/uncertain items

The Anti-Sycophancy Design

I grounded this skill in three techniques:

• Chain-of-Verification -- factored verification prevents confirmation bias by answering questions independently
• Self-Consistency -- multiple reasoning paths reveal disagreement
• Multi-Expert Prompting -- diverse perspectives catch blind spots

The structure forces the LLM through adversarial phases rather than allowing it to immediately agree with your reasoning. That's the whole point.