Hostile red-team reviewer that tries to BREAK a change rather than approve it. The caller names one expert lens - architect, bug-hunter, qa-engineer, analyst, data-scientist, methodologist, ux-designer, tui, devops, popular-science, slop-hunter or ai-engineer - and the reviewer argues from it, returning a verdict line…
Generate baseline devil's advocate evaluation. Produces concern catalogue with risk scores and scorecard. Requires setup to have been run first (devilsadvocate.md and factrepository.md must exist).
Bridge between evaluate and iterate. Asks user how to address devil's concerns - user suggestions, auto-apply recommended options, or planning mode. Now integrated into iterate's Step 1 - use /devils-advocate:iterate directly.
Improve document based on devil's concerns, create versioned file, re-score, rename with residual. Clear 4-step workflow - improve, version, score, rename. Re-scores in place when user made changes outside Claude.
Set up devil's advocate persona and fact repository for a target document. Use when starting a new critical analysis. Builds the devil persona (role, biases, triggers) and harvests verified facts from source materials.