xc-test-thesis
Tests whether a thesis or hypothesis holds up under adversarial scrutiny. Use this when the user is doing strategic planning and has a thesis or hypothesis they want to evaluate for robustness.
What this skill does
# Introduction
## Goal
Determine what's defensible, what's contested, and what falls apart in a thesis or belief the user holds.
## Method
Two context-blind agents analyse the thesis in parallel — one builds the strongest case FOR, one finds the strongest case AGAINST. They exchange findings and refine. The main agent synthesises into a defensibility spectrum.
## Part 1: Evaluate
- Think about whether this skill actually applies to the current situation. If it doesn't, skip silently and move on.
- If it does, suggest it to the user conversationally. Briefly explain why you think it's relevant. Wait for confirmation before proceeding.
## Part 2: Workflow
### 1. Track progress
- Create a task list so the user can track progress:
- Confirm thesis and source material
- Parallel analysis (Analyst + Skeptic)
- Exchange and refine
- Synthesise and present
### 2. Confirm thesis
- State the thesis clearly and ask the user to confirm it. Also confirm what source material to work from (conversation context, specific files, or both). Wait for confirmation before proceeding.
### 3. Parallel analysis
- Spawn two context-blind agents in parallel (Explore task agents, Opus). Use the following prompts:
**Analyst agent** (name: "Analyst — build case FOR"):
```
You are the ANALYST in an adversarial thesis test. Do NOT read any files, search any directories, or look for additional context unless source files are specified below.
THESIS: "{thesis}"
SOURCE MATERIAL: {source_material}
Your job: Build the STRONGEST possible case FOR this thesis.
- Extract every piece of supporting evidence
- Identify patterns and logical inferences that validate the thesis
- Prioritise by strength of evidence
Output a structured report:
1. Key supporting evidence (with specific references where available)
2. Logical chain of reasoning
3. Confidence assessment — what's rock-solid vs what's interpretive
```
**Skeptic agent** (name: "Skeptic — build case AGAINST"):
```
You are the SKEPTIC in an adversarial thesis test. Do NOT read any files, search any directories, or look for additional context unless source files are specified below.
THESIS: "{thesis}"
SOURCE MATERIAL: {source_material}
Your job: Find the STRONGEST case AGAINST this thesis.
- Find contradictory evidence the Analyst might overlook
- Propose alternative readings of any evidence that could support the thesis
- Identify missing context, logical gaps, or unstated assumptions
Output a structured report:
1. Counter-evidence (with specific references where available)
2. Alternative interpretations of key evidence
3. Logical weaknesses in the thesis
4. What would need to be true for this thesis to hold?
```
### 4. Exchange
- Resume each agent, showing them the other's findings. Run in parallel:
**Resume Analyst:**
```
The Skeptic produced this counter-analysis:
{skeptic_report}
Refine your position:
- Address their strongest counter-points
- Concede what you must
- Strengthen what survives
```
**Resume Skeptic:**
```
The Analyst produced this supporting analysis:
{analyst_report}
Refine your position:
- Address their strongest evidence
- Identify what you cannot defeat
- Sharpen your remaining critiques
```
### 5. Synthesise
- Using both agents' refined reports, create the defensibility spectrum.
## Final output
Present the spectrum to the user:
```
## Thesis Test: {thesis}
### Solid ground
Evidence and reasoning that both sides agree on.
### Contested
Claims where both sides found plausible but competing evidence or interpretations.
[For each: what the analyst says, what the skeptic says, and which way it leans]
### Unsupported
Claims that were either debunked with counter-evidence, had no grounding, or relied on unstated assumptions.
### Refined thesis
A revised version of the thesis incorporating only what survived scrutiny.
### Open questions
What remains uncertain and would need further investigation.
```
## Related skills
- **xc-stress-test-decision** — For testing a specific decision or choice rather than a belief or thesis.
- **xc-clarify-framing** — If the thesis itself is vague, clarify it first.
Related in Code Review
gstack
IncludedFast headless browser for QA testing and site dogfooding. Navigate pages, interact with elements, verify state, diff before/after, take annotated screenshots, test responsive layouts, forms, uploads, dialogs, and capture bug evidence. Use when asked to open or test a site, verify a deployment, dogfood a user flow, or file a bug with screenshots. (gstack)
startup-due-diligence
IncludedLegal due diligence review for seed-stage and Series A startups (US, Delaware C-Corp focus). Supports both investor and founder perspectives. Capabilities include: (1) Interactive document review and issue spotting; (2) Document request list generation; (3) Cap table and SAFE/convertible note analysis; (4) Red flag identification with severity ratings; (5) Diligence report generation. TRIGGERS: due diligence, DD, startup investment, cap table review, Series A, seed round, investor diligence, legal review startup, SAFE analysis, convertible note, 409A, founder vesting.
interview-master
IncludedThis skill should be used when the user asks to "generate interview questions", "prepare for interview", "optimize resume", "conduct mock interview", "analyze git commits for resume", "generate resume from code", "review my resume", or mentions interview preparation, career assistance, or extracting project experience from git history. Provides comprehensive interview and career development guidance for both job seekers and interviewers.
fix-issue
IncludedFixes GitHub issues using parallel analysis agents for root cause investigation, code exploration, and regression detection. Reads issue context from gh CLI, searches codebase and memory for related patterns, generates a fix with tests, and links the resolution back to the issue via PR. Includes prevention analysis to avoid recurrence. Use when debugging errors, resolving regressions, fixing bugs, or triaging issues.
sf-apex
IncludedGenerates and reviews Salesforce Apex code with 150-point scoring. TRIGGER when: user writes, reviews, or fixes Apex classes, triggers, test classes, batch/queueable/schedulable jobs, or touches .cls/.trigger files. DO NOT TRIGGER when: LWC JavaScript (use sf-lwc), Flow XML (use sf-flow), SOQL-only queries (use sf-soql), or non-Salesforce code.
swift-development
IncludedComprehensive Swift development for building, testing, and deploying iOS/macOS applications. Use when Claude needs to: (1) Build Swift packages or Xcode projects from command line, (2) Run tests with XCTest or Swift Testing framework, (3) Manage iOS simulators with simctl, (4) Handle code signing, provisioning profiles, and app distribution, (5) Format or lint Swift code with SwiftFormat/SwiftLint, (6) Work with Swift Package Manager (SPM), (7) Implement Swift 6 concurrency patterns (async/await, actors, Sendable), (8) Create SwiftUI views with MVVM architecture, (9) Set up Core Data or SwiftData persistence, or any other Swift/iOS/macOS development tasks.