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