Socratic Probes

A collection of Claude Code slash commands for rigorous Socratic analysis of documents, proposals, and recommendations.

What It Does

These skills apply the Socratic method to critically examine documents through six specialized lenses:

Installation

Option 1: Project-Level (Recommended)

Copy the .claude/commands folder to your project root:

# Clone or download this repo
git clone https://github.com/YOUR_USERNAME/socratic-probes.git

# Copy to your project
cp -r socratic-probes/.claude YOUR_PROJECT_ROOT/

The skills will be available when you run Claude Code in that project directory.

Option 2: User-Level (Global)

Copy the command files to your global Claude Code commands folder:

macOS/Linux:

cp socratic-probes/.claude/commands/*.md ~/.claude/commands/

Windows:

Copy-Item socratic-probes\.claude\commands\*.md $env:USERPROFILE\.claude\commands\

Usage

Full Socratic Analysis

Run a comprehensive analysis with 6 parallel agents:

/probe-start path/to/document.md ./output-directory

This will:

1. Launch 6 specialized analysis agents in parallel
2. Each agent writes its evaluation to the output directory
3. Create a synthesis document consolidating all findings

Output files:

• socratic-1-clarify-thinking.md
• socratic-2-challenge-assumptions.md
• socratic-3-evidence-basis.md
• socratic-4-alternative-viewpoints.md
• socratic-5-implications-consequences.md
• socratic-6-question-the-question.md
• socratic-synthesis.md (consolidated findings)

Individual Probes

Run specific types of analysis:

/probe-clarify path/to/document.md    # Clarify thinking
/probe-assume path/to/document.md     # Challenge assumptions
/probe-evidence path/to/document.md   # Examine evidence
/probe-pov path/to/document.md        # Alternative viewpoints
/probe-implications path/to/document.md  # Trace consequences
/probe-qq path/to/document.md         # Question the question

Synthesize Existing Evaluations

If you've run individual probes and want to synthesize them:

/probe-synthesis ./output-directory

The Six Socratic Lenses

1. Clarify Thinking

"What do you mean by...?" / "What is the source of this idea?"

• Identifies key claims needing clarification
• Questions definitions and terminology
• Traces origin of conclusions
• Examines reasoning chains
• Highlights ambiguities

2. Challenge Assumptions

"What are you assuming here?" / "What if you were wrong?"

• Identifies hidden assumptions
• Questions foundational premises
• Challenges comparison methodology
• Tests robustness of conclusions

3. Evidence Basis

"What evidence supports this?" / "What would disprove this?"

• Audits sources for bias and reliability
• Identifies unsupported assertions
• Evaluates evidence quality
• Assesses completeness

4. Alternative Viewpoints

"What is the counter-argument?" / "Who would disagree?"

• Presents strongest counter-arguments
• Identifies unrepresented perspectives
• Explores internal contradictions
• Steel-mans rejected options

5. Implications & Consequences

"What follows from this?" / "What are the long-term effects?"

• Traces first and second-order implications
• Identifies unintended consequences
• Explores consequences of being wrong
• Maps downstream effects

6. Question the Question

"Is this the right question?" / "What question should we ask instead?"

• Examines the framing
• Challenges scope and timing
• Identifies questions not asked
• Proposes alternative framing

Synthesis Document Structure

The synthesis consolidates findings into an actionable format:

1. Executive Summary - Bottom-line assessment
2. Critical Findings Table - Key insight from each evaluation
3. Evidence Quality Assessment - Source reliability and gaps
4. Assumption Risk Matrix - What happens if assumptions are wrong
5. Unexplored Alternatives - Options not considered
6. Hidden Costs & Consequences - Unaddressed implications
7. The Meta-Question - Is the document asking the right question?
8. Decision Framework - Validation checklist
9. Stakeholder Questions - Questions for CEO, CTO, CFO, Product
10. Final Verdict - Ready for action or needs more work?

Use Cases

• Technical proposals - Evaluate architecture decisions
• Business cases - Challenge ROI assumptions
• Research papers - Assess evidence quality
• Strategy documents - Explore alternatives
• RFCs/ADRs - Rigorous review before adoption
• Vendor evaluations - Identify bias and gaps

Requirements

• Claude Code CLI
• A document to analyze (markdown, text, or other readable format)

License

MIT License - See LICENSE file.

Contributing

Contributions welcome! Feel free to:

• Add new probe types
• Improve existing prompts
• Share interesting use cases

Acknowledgments

Inspired by the Socratic method of questioning to examine ideas critically and stimulate deeper thinking.