mcpField
T
the-fool

the-fool

github.com/farmage生産性218278 回インストール5 週間前に更新
リポジトリ

the-fool について

アイデア、計画、意思決定を評価する人向けの、構造化された批判的思考スキルです。前提の検証からレッドチーム分析まで5つのモードを備え、異論の検討から統合へと進めます。

主な機能

  1. 015つの構造化された推論モード
  2. 02論点を最も強い形で示してから検証
  3. 03AskUserQuestionによるモード選択
  4. 04具体的な異論と証拠の検討
  5. 05統合と実行可能な次の手順

活用シーン

  1. 01決定前に計画をストレステスト
  2. 02技術やベンダーの選択肢を比較
  3. 03実装前に設計をレッドチーム分析
  4. 04事業上の主張を証拠に照らして確認

インストール

コマンドをコピーしてターミナルで実行します。

$npx skills add https://github.com/farmage/opencode-skills --skill the-fool

インストール後、Claude Code で/the-foolを入力して読み込まれたか確認します。

同梱ファイル

SKILL.md と一緒にインストールされる参考資料やスクリプト。

references/
dialectic-synthesis.md
evidence-audit.md
mode-selection-guide.md
pre-mortem-analysis.md
red-team-adversarial.md
socratic-questioning.md

README(原文)English

プロジェクトの README より

この README の日本語訳はまだありません。以下は英語の原文です。日本語の紹介はページ上部をご覧ください。

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

  1. Identify — Extract the user's position from conversation context. Restate it as a steelmanned thesis for confirmation.
  2. Select — Use AskUserQuestion with two-step mode selection (see below).
  3. Challenge — Apply the selected mode's method. Load the corresponding reference file for deep guidance.
  4. Engage — Present the 3-5 strongest challenges. Ask the user to respond before proceeding.
  5. 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):

OptionDescription
Question assumptionsProbe what's being taken for granted
Build counter-argumentsArgue the strongest opposing position
Find weaknessesAnticipate how this fails or gets exploited
You chooseAuto-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.md and auto-recommend

5 Reasoning Modes

ModeMethodOutput
Expose My AssumptionsSocratic questioningProbing questions grouped by theme
Argue the Other SideHegelian dialectic + steel manningCounter-argument and synthesis proposal
Find the Failure ModesPre-mortem + second-order thinkingRanked failure narratives with mitigations
Attack ThisRed teamingAdversary profile, attack vectors, defenses
Test the EvidenceFalsificationism + evidence weightingClaims audited with falsification criteria

Reference Guide

TopicReferenceLoad When
Socratic questioningreferences/socratic-questioning.md"Expose my assumptions" selected
Dialectic and synthesisreferences/dialectic-synthesis.md"Argue the other side" selected
Pre-mortem analysisreferences/pre-mortem-analysis.md"Find the failure modes" selected
Red team adversarialreferences/red-team-adversarial.md"Attack this" selected
Evidence auditreferences/evidence-audit.md"Test the evidence" selected
Mode selection guidereferences/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 AskUserQuestion for 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 AskUserQuestion can provide structured options

Output Templates

Each mode produces a structured deliverable. See the corresponding reference file for the full template.

ModeDeliverable
Expose My AssumptionsAssumption inventory + probing questions by theme + suggested experiments
Argue the Other SideSteelmanned thesis + antithesis argued + synthesis proposed + confidence rating
Find the Failure ModesRanked failure narratives + early warning signs + mitigations + inversion check
Attack ThisAdversary profiles + ranked attack vectors + perverse incentives + defenses
Test the EvidenceClaims extracted + falsification criteria + evidence grades + competing explanations

After any mode, the final output must include:

  1. Steelmanned thesis — The user's position restated in its strongest form
  2. Challenges — 3-5 strongest points from the selected mode
  3. User response — Space for the user to engage before synthesis
  4. Synthesis — Strengthened position integrating the challenges
  5. 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

Documentation

コメント