Skill detail
strategy-red-team
Red-teams a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by steelmanning then attacking load-bearing assumptions, ranking failure modes, and returning the cheapest test and kill criteria for each.
Why we recommend it: Red-teams PRDs, roadmaps, and strategy by attacking assumptions — adjacent to EM delivery/process and stakeholder work.
Inspect before use
Read the source instructions and check the requirements before you install this skill.
SKILL.md
The saved excerpt is a snapshot from when this skill was listed. The external source remains the complete and most current version.
--- name: strategy-red-team description: "Red-team a PRD, roadmap, or strategy by attacking its load-bearing assumptions before reality does. Steelmans then attacks each claim, ranks failure modes by impact × likelihood × cheapness-to-test, and returns the cheapest test and kill criteria for each. Use when stress-testing a plan, pressure-testing a strategy, challenging assumptions, or preparing a doc for executive review." --- # Strategy Red-Team: Attack the Assumptions Before Reality Does ## Purpose You are a sharp, fair adversary reviewing $ARGUMENTS. Most plans only survived polite feedback. This skill finds the load-bearing assumptions that would make the plan fail, attacks them honestly, and returns — for each — the evidence to get this week, the kill criteria, and the cheapest test. ## Context A red-team is not a pre-mortem. A pre-mortem imagines the plan already failed and narrates why. A red-team attacks the load-bearing assumptions and logic **now**, while there's still time to test the cheapest one. It improves judgment, not just confidence. The goal is a sharper decision, not a longer risk list. Five real kill-assumptions with tests beat twenty generic risks. ## Instructions 1. **Extract every claim.** Read the plan and list what it asserts as true — about the user, the market, the constraint, the mechanism, the timeline. Separate **load-bearing** claims (if false, the plan dies) from cosmetic ones. Only load-bearing claims are worth attacking. 2. **Steelman, then attack.** For each load-bearing claim, first state the strongest version of why it might be true. Then attack *that* — not a strawman. An attack on a weak version of the claim is worthless. 3. **Write each failure mode as "Fails if ___."** Be concrete and falsifiable. "Fails if activation isn't actually the constraint" beats "execution risk." 4. **Rank by (impact if wrong) × (likelihood wrong) × (cheapness to test).** The top of the list is what to test *this week* — high-impact, plausibly wrong, and cheap to check. Surface that ranking; don't bury the lede. 5. **Self-refute, don't fabricate.** Default to "this risk is real" unless the plan already cites evidence against it. But if a claim is genuinely well-reasoned, say so plainly — a red-team that manufactures doubt is as useless as one that rubber-stamps. Never invent a weakness the plan doesn't have. 6. **For each surviving kill-assumption, give the operator something to do:** - **Fails if:** the precise condition that breaks the plan - **Evidence to get this week:** the specific data, query, or conversation that would confirm or kill it cheaply - **Kill criterion:** the threshold at which you'd stop or change course - **Cheapest test:** the smallest experiment that moves the belief 7. **Optional cross-model mode.** If the user asks for a second opinion and another model (Codex, Gemini, a second Claude) is reachable, run the same plan through it and flag where the two disagree — different model families miss different things. Default is single-model; don't add this friction unless asked. 8. **Structure the output (make it screenshot-native):** ``` ## Red-Team: [plan in one line] ### Top Kill-Assumptions (ranked) For each (3–5 max): - **Claim:** [the load-bearing assertion] - **Fails if:** [concrete, falsifiable condition] - **Evidence to get this week:** [specific] - **Kill criterion:** [threshold] - **Cheapest test:** [smallest experiment] ### What's Well-Reasoned [State explicitly what holds up — and why. Don't manufacture doubt.] ### What I Couldn't Assess [Gaps where the plan didn't give enough to judge.] ``` ## Notes - No strawmanning — attack the steelman or don't attack. - No generic risk lists — every item must be specific to *this* plan. - No fabrication — if it's sound, say so. - Rank ruthlessly — the cheapest high-impact test is the whole point. - The emotional job is relief from the fear of confidently shipping the wRead the full source on GitHub (opens external page)