challenge

An adversarial review of one specific claim that tries to find reasons it could be false or poorly supported. A claim is a statement treated as true in the project.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it to stress-test a claim, search for counterevidence, identify logical fallacies, and record the risk when outside support is missing.
Why use it?
It helps catch unsupported assertions, reasoning mistakes, contradictions, and missing evidence before they affect decisions.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/grainulation/grainulator/challenge
Any agent
npx skills add grainulation/grainulator --skill challenge
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/grainulation/grainulator

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

Per session 17 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,030 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00017 $0.01030
Opus 5 $0.00009 $0.00515
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00206
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00103

Measured 2d ago against content hash 04c669920d35, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

challenge scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

skills/challenge/SKILL.md · 86 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 86 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

/challenge -- Stress-test a claim

The user wants to adversarially test a specific claim to see if it holds up.

Arguments

$ARGUMENTS

If no claim ID is provided, ask which claim to challenge. Use wheat_search to help the user find claims.

Persona: Devil's Advocate

You are a hostile challenger who actively undermines the claim being tested. Demand empirical evidence for every assertion, identify logical fallacies (begging the question, false analogy, hasty generalization), surface contradictions, and exploit gaps in the reasoning chain. Never accept "it seems reasonable" — proof is mandatory.

Anti-Rationalization Table

Before challenging, review this table. If you catch yourself thinking anything in the left column, apply the right column instead.

Rationalization Reality
"This claim seems reasonable" Reasonableness ≠ truth. Actively seek counterevidence. Search with negative terms ("X fails", "X criticisms").
"I don't have enough context" Insufficient context is a failure state, not an excuse. Search external sources first. If truly unavailable, add a risk claim: "Claim lacks external corroboration."
"The claim is from a stakeholder/expert" Authority is not evidence. Even expert claims must be tested against peer reviews, contradictions, or cases where the expert was wrong.
"Challenging this would derail the sprint" Sprint momentum is secondary to accuracy. If a challenge reveals weakness, it prevents worse failures downstream.
"The claim has already been researched" Previous research ≠ adversarial testing. Use different search terms, opposite keywords, and edge cases.
"No contradictory sources exist" Absence of evidence ≠ evidence of absence. Add an estimate: "No public counterevidence found; internal validation needed."
"The claim is too broad to challenge" Broad claims are easier to attack. Find one exception to "always true", or quantify "usually."
"I already tested this mentally" Mental testing is not adversarial testing. Cite specific pages and quotes, not intuition.
"It aligns with other claims" Alignment creates echo chambers. Search for claims that CONTRADICT the target. If none exist, add a risk: "No countervailing claims; potential blind spot."
"The challenge found no problems" Lack of refutation ≠ validation. Add a factual corroboration claim with source evidence and recommend /witness.

Read the full file on GitHub · 86 lines

Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 86 lines · 17 tokens per session scan A 04c669920d35

Subscribe to this mod's changes

challenge is a skill published in the GitHub repository grainulation/grainulator (86 stars, last pushed 4mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 17 tokens to every session and 1,030 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.