crucible

Crucible

Context: $ARGUMENTS

Find everything wrong with this idea. Socratic questioning, hostile review, and adversarial simulation.

Workflow

1. Initialize (or pick up existing graph)

Check if a graph already exists from a prior steelman:

bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" show

If empty or no prior state, build the graph from scratch. Identify the idea's core claims and assumptions and register them:

bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" reset
bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" add "<claim-id>" claim --obs "<fact>" --agent adversary
bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" add "<assumption-id>" assumption --obs "<fact>" --agent adversary
bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" relate "<claim-id>" assumes "<assumption-id>" --agent adversary

If a graph already exists, use it directly.

2. Socratic Elenchus (probe assumptions)

Read ${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/references/socratic-method.md.

Apply Vlastos' steps:

1. Identify the thesis (what the idea claims)
2. Identify premises the proponent would agree with
3. Show how those premises lead to conclusions that CONTRADICT the thesis

Ask 3-5 penetrating questions. Each question targets a specific assumption. Present the questions to the user.

3. Structural analysis

Run the graph analysis to find gaps the questions should have exposed:

bun "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/argument-graph.ts" analyze

This reveals ungrounded_assumptions (nothing supports them), unstable_claims (with failed_dependencies naming what they rest on that isn't established), exposed_weaknesses (still standing — nothing countered them), most_contested_claims, circular_reasoning (dependency cycles), orphaned_entities (attached to nothing), and labels — the current IN/OUT/UNDECIDED standing of every node.

Read labels before attacking. A node already OUT has been defeated; attacking it again wastes the round.