the-fool
Acerca de
La habilidad Fool proporciona razonamiento crítico estructurado para cuestionar ideas, planes o decisiones mediante modos como abogado del diablo o análisis premortem. Los desarrolladores deben usarla para someter a prueba arquitecturas, auditar supuestos e identificar posibles fallos antes de comprometerse con la implementación. Genera un informe formal de revisión, lo que la hace ideal para la validación previa al compromiso de decisiones técnicas.
Instalación rápida
Claude Code
Recomendadonpx skills add jeffallan/claude-skills -a claude-code/plugin add https://github.com/jeffallan/claude-skillsgit clone https://github.com/jeffallan/claude-skills.git ~/.claude/skills/the-foolCopia y pega este comando en Claude Code para instalar esta habilidad
Documentación
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
Repositorio GitHub
Habilidades relacionadas
llamaguard
OtroLlamaGuard es el modelo de Meta de 7-8B parámetros para moderar las entradas y salidas de LLM en seis categorías de seguridad como violencia y discurso de odio. Ofrece una precisión del 94-95% y puede implementarse usando vLLM, Hugging Face o Amazon SageMaker. Utiliza esta skill para integrar fácilmente filtrado de contenido y barreras de seguridad en tus aplicaciones de IA.
cost-optimization
OtroEsta Skill de Claude ayuda a los desarrolladores a optimizar los costes en la nube mediante el ajuste de tamaño de recursos, estrategias de etiquetado y análisis de gastos. Proporciona un marco para reducir los gastos en la nube e implementar una gobernanza de costes en AWS, Azure y GCP. Úsala cuando necesites analizar los costes de infraestructura, ajustar el tamaño de los recursos o cumplir con restricciones presupuestarias.
quantizing-models-bitsandbytes
OtroEsta habilidad cuantiza LLMs a precisión de 8 o 4 bits utilizando bitsandbytes, logrando una reducción de memoria del 50-75% con pérdida mínima de precisión. Es ideal para ejecutar modelos más grandes en memoria GPU limitada o para acelerar la inferencia, admitiendo formatos como INT8, NF4 y FP4. La habilidad se integra con HuggingFace Transformers y permite entrenamiento QLoRA y optimizadores de 8 bits.
dispatching-parallel-agents
OtroEsta Skill de Claude despliega múltiples agentes para investigar y solucionar 3 o más problemas independientes de forma concurrente. Está diseñada para escenarios que involucran fallos no relacionados que pueden resolverse sin estado compartido o dependencias. Su capacidad principal es la resolución paralela de problemas, asignando un agente por cada dominio problemático independiente para maximizar la eficiencia.
