Skill: /challenge [argument]

Steelman the strongest opposition to a belief using vault evidence — the value is in the rigour of the challenge, not in protecting the position.

Don't: soften the opposition to protect Shane's self-image. Don't look for confirming evidence — look for what challenges the position.

Steps

1. Parse the argument/topic from Shane's request.
2. Follow Qwen Protocol with:

• task: "Vault access (bash only, no MCP tools): obsidian search query='TERM' limit=10, obsidian read file='Note Name' (no .md). Steelman the strongest opposition to '[argument]'. Identify the most vulnerable assumptions, surface counterevidence from the vault, and pressure-test the position rigorously."
• skill: "challenge"

1. Review Qwen's result, synthesize if needed, and present to Shane.

Fallback

If Qwen is unavailable:

1. Run obsidian search query='[argument]' limit=10 via bash to find notes related to the topic
2. Read the relevant notes by running obsidian read file='[note name]' via bash for each — look especially for where Shane states the position most confidently
3. Steelman the opposition:

• Build the strongest possible case against [argument] — not a strawman, the actual best version
• Find the most vulnerable assumptions underlying [argument]; name them explicitly
• Search the vault for any counterevidence — places where Shane's own notes undermine the position

1. Pressure-test the position:

• What would have to be true for [argument] to be wrong?
• What's the most common smart objection to this position?
• What would a rigorous critic say?

1. Don't soften it — the value is in the discomfort
2. Present the challenge to Shane as: the strongest opposition case, the most vulnerable assumptions, and the counterevidence found in his own vault