Use this skill whenever the user presents a claim, idea, proposal, argument, or belief and wants rigorous critical analysis. Triggers on phrases like "steelman this", "red team this", "challenge this idea", "evaluate this claim", "is X a good idea?", "devil's advocate", "what are the strongest arguments for/against", "analyze this proposal", or whenever someone shares a position and clearly wants balanced, adversarial thinking rather than just validation. Also use proactively when someone asks you to evaluate whether something is true, wise, or worth doing — even if they don't use the word "steelman". The skill performs a structured four-argument dialectical analysis and synthesizes a final verdict.
The user has given you a claim, idea, or proposal. Your job is to give it a full dialectical workout: steelman it, attack the steelman, steelman the opposite, attack that too, then extract what's actually true from the wreckage.
This process is valuable precisely because it resists the natural pull toward one-sided thinking. Even if you have a strong prior about whether the claim is right, your job is to steelman each side as if you genuinely believed it — and red-team each side as if you were trying to demolish it.
Build the strongest possible version of the user's claim. This means:
The test of a good steelman: the person who holds the original view should read it and say "yes, that's exactly what I think, and you put it better than I did."
Now attack the steelmanned claim with full force:
A red team that can be easily dismissed has failed. You're looking for the objection that would actually make a thoughtful proponent pause.
Construct the strongest positive case for the opposite position. This is not merely negating Step 1 — it means:
Apply the same critical pressure to the counter-claim:
This is the hardest and most important step. Don't just summarize — extract the strongest signal.
Work through:
## Steelman: [the claim, stated crisply]
[The best case for the claim]
---
## Red Team: Against the Steelman
[Attack the steelmanned claim]
---
## Steelman: [the counter-claim / opposite position, stated crisply]
[The best case for the opposite]
---
## Red Team: Against the Counter-Claim's Steelman
[Attack the counter-claim's steelman]
---
## Synthesis
[Extract the strongest signal, name contradictions, walk through the reasoning chain, give a verdict]
Keep each section substantive but not padded. The goal is analytical quality, not length. If the claim is narrow, the sections can be short. If it's complex, they can be long. Let the content dictate.