devils-advocate
Challenge slide design with 5-7 pedagogical questions. Checks ordering, prerequisites, and cognitive load.
Best use case
devils-advocate is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Challenge slide design with 5-7 pedagogical questions. Checks ordering, prerequisites, and cognitive load.
Teams using devils-advocate should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/devils-advocate/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How devils-advocate Compares
| Feature / Agent | devils-advocate | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Challenge slide design with 5-7 pedagogical questions. Checks ordering, prerequisites, and cognitive load.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
SKILL.md Source
# Devil's Advocate 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." --- ## Setup 1. **Read the target file** (the lecture being challenged) 2. **Read the knowledge base** in `.claude/rules/` for notation conventions and narrative arc 3. If applicable, **read adjacent lectures** for narrative continuity --- ## Challenge Categories Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories: ### 1. Ordering Challenges > "Could students understand this better if we showed X before Y?" ### 2. Prerequisite Challenges > "Do students have the background for this notation at this point?" ### 3. Gap Challenges > "Should we include an intuitive example before this formal proof?" ### 4. Alternative Presentation Challenges > "Here are 2 other ways to visualize/present this concept." ### 5. Notation Conflict Challenges > "This symbol conflicts with earlier lecture usage." ### 6. Cognitive Load Challenges > "This slide has too many new symbols. Can we split?" ### 7. Book Vision Challenges > "If this becomes a book chapter, does this section stand alone?" --- ## Output Format ```markdown # 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] ``` --- ## Principles - **Be specific:** Reference exact slides and notation - **Be constructive:** Every challenge has a suggested resolution - **Be honest:** If the deck is good, say so - **Prioritize:** Notation conflicts > missed metaphors - **Think like a student:** Where do they get lost?
Related Skills
visual-audit
Perform adversarial visual audit of Quarto or Beamer slides checking for overflow, font consistency, box fatigue, and layout issues.
validate-bib
Validate bibliography entries against citations in all lecture files. Find missing entries and unused references.
translate-to-quarto
Translate Beamer LaTeX to Quarto RevealJS. Multi-phase workflow with TikZ extraction and QA.
slide-excellence
Multi-agent slide review (visual, pedagogy, proofreading). Use for comprehensive quality check before milestones.
review-r
Run the R code review protocol on R scripts. Checks code quality, reproducibility, domain correctness, and professional standards. Produces a report without editing files.
review-paper
Comprehensive manuscript review covering argument structure, econometric specification, citation completeness, and potential referee objections
research-ideation
Generate structured research questions, testable hypotheses, and empirical strategies from a topic or dataset
qa-quarto
Adversarial Quarto vs Beamer QA. Critic finds issues, fixer applies fixes, loops until APPROVED (max 5 rounds).
proofread
Run the proofreading protocol on lecture files. Checks grammar, typos, overflow, consistency, and academic writing quality. Produces a report without editing files.
pedagogy-review
Run holistic pedagogical review on lecture slides. Checks narrative arc, student prerequisites, worked examples, notation clarity, and deck pacing.
lit-review
Structured literature search and synthesis with citation extraction and gap identification
learn
Extract reusable knowledge from the current session into a persistent skill. Use when you discover something non-obvious, create a workaround, or develop a multi-step workflow that future sessions would benefit from.