Challenge research design decisions, assumptions, and methodology choices with specific critical questions. Helps strengthen the paper before submission.
Start a fresh conversation. Replace the highlighted placeholders.
Use devils-advocate to critically challenge the research design for [study topic and methodology], producing 5–7 questions with severity, why each matters, and a suggested robustness check, followed by a summary verdict.
Required inputs
[study topic and methodology]
User-approved starter prompt based on a pinned source version; check current skill requirements before running. Task evidence ↗
SKILL.md
name: devils-advocatedescription: Challenge research design decisions, assumptions, and methodology choices with specific critical questions. Helps strengthen the paper before submission.disable-model-invocation: trueargument-hint: "[topic, design choice, or methodology to challenge]"allowed-tools: ["Read", "Grep", "Glob"]
Devil's Advocate
Critically examine a research design, methodology, or assumption with 5-7 specific challenges.
Steps
Understand the target: Read $ARGUMENTS and any relevant project files (CLAUDE.md, manuscript, estimation code).
Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:
Identification: Could the causal claim be undermined by [specific threat]?
Specification: What if the functional form is wrong? Alternative specifications?
Data: Are there sample selection issues? Measurement error concerns?
Methodology: Could a different estimator give different results? Why this method?
Assumptions: Which assumptions are most vulnerable? What if they're violated?
Robustness: What robustness checks are missing?
External validity: Does this generalize beyond the sample?
For each challenge, provide:
The question
Why it matters
Suggested resolution or robustness check
Severity (Critical / Major / Minor)
Summary verdict: Strengths, critical changes needed, and suggested improvements.