Adversarial 5-7 question challenge to a deck's pedagogical choices — ordering, prerequisites, cognitive load, motivation. Use when user says "devil's advocate", "poke holes in this deck", "push back on my slides", "stress-test the design", "what would a skeptical student ask?". Read-only; surfaces questions to force rethinking. Lighter than `/pedagogy-review`.
Critically examine a slide deck and challenge its design with 5-7 specific pedagogical questions.
Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible presentation through active dialogue."
.claude/rules/ for notation conventions and narrative arcGenerate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
"Could students understand this better if we showed X before Y?"
"Do students have the background for this notation at this point?"
"Should we include an intuitive example before this formal proof?"
"Here are 2 other ways to visualize/present this concept."
"This symbol conflicts with earlier lecture usage."
"This slide has too many new symbols. Can we split?"
"If this becomes a book chapter, does this section stand alone?"
# Devil's Advocate: [Lecture Title]
## Challenges
### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific pedagogical question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Slides affected:** [Numbers or titles]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]
[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]
## Summary Verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before teaching]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]