Challenge: Critical Thinking Prompt
Step 1: Parse Challenge Request
<strategist> @agent-oracle
Analyze the challenge request: $ARGUMENTS
Challenge Extraction:
- Core concern: Extract the main doubt or question
- Target approach: Identify what is being challenged
- Context: Relevant background from current session
- Specific aspects: Particular elements to question
Challenge Summary: You're challenging: [identified approach] Because: [extracted concern] In context of: [session context] </strategist>
Step 2: Set Up Critical Thinking Framework
<framework> What to Question:
- Underlying assumptions: What beliefs support this approach?
- Evidence base: What data or experience validates it?
- Context fit: How well does it work in your specific situation?
- Alternatives considered: What other options were explored?
- Risk factors: What could go wrong with this approach?
Critical Thinking Prompts:
- Is this approach solving the right problem?
- Are the underlying assumptions still valid?
- What evidence contradicts this direction?
- How does this fit with your constraints and goals?
- What are the opportunity costs?
</framework>
Step 3: Sequential Thinking Analysis
<strategist> @agent-oracle
Use sequential thinking (mcp__sequential-thinking__sequentialthinking) to analyze this challenge:
Thought 1: Question the fundamental assumptions Thought 2: Examine contradictory evidence Thought 3: Explore alternative approaches Thought 4: Assess context-specific fit Thought 5: Evaluate risks and trade-offs Thought 6: Synthesize findings into recommendation
Build systematically through evidence, alternatives, and risks. Continue until you reach a clear conclusion. </strategist>
Step 4: Critical Evaluation Output
Self-Critique Questions:
- Does the analysis address the user's specific context?
- Are the recommendations practical and implementable?
- Have we considered the most important constraints?
- Are there any blind spots or missing perspectives?
Final Synthesis:
- Assumption validity: Are the underlying assumptions sound?
- Evidence assessment: Does evidence support or contradict?
- Alternative recommendation: If current approach is problematic, what instead?
- Risk mitigation: How to address identified concerns?
Usage Examples
Challenge Technical Decisions:
/atelier-challenge "Do we really need a microservices architecture for this simple app?"Challenge Implementation Approach:
/atelier-challenge "I think this caching strategy will actually slow things down"Challenge Requirements:
/atelier-challenge "Are we solving the right problem with this feature?"Challenge Architectural Patterns:
/atelier-challenge "Should we really use event sourcing for this use case?"When to Use Challenge
Before Major Decisions:
- Architecture choices
- Technology stack decisions
- Design pattern selection
- Implementation approach
When Something Feels Off:
- "This seems overly complex"
- "I'm not sure this solves the real problem"
- "This approach feels wrong"
- "Are we over-engineering this?"
To Prevent Automatic Agreement:
- When you want genuine critical evaluation
- When you need to challenge conventional wisdom
- When you want to test your own assumptions
Challenge vs ThinkDeep
Use /atelier-challenge: Question assumptions, test validity, assess risks, prevent automatic agreement Use /atelier-thinkdeep: Deep exploration, comprehensive analysis, alternative discovery, complex decisions
Key distinction: Challenge = critical evaluation, ThinkDeep = deep exploration