Devil's Advocate Protocol Pre-commitment adversarial reasoning to prevent early lock-in and expose blind spots. When to Apply Activate this protocol when: Choosing between architectural approaches Selecting libraries, frameworks, or tools Planning implementation strategy Recommending one approach over alternatives User asks "should I...", "what's the best way to...", "which approach..." During architect , Plan , or blueprint workflows Making trade-off decisions with non-obvious answers When to Skip Do NOT apply when: Executing already-decided implementation Single obvious path exists (no real alternatives) User explicitly chose the approach ("use X to do Y") Task is mechanical/procedural, not decisional Trivial choices with negligible impact The Protocol Step 1: Identify the Commitment Before recommending an approach, explicitly state: What decision is being made What approach you're inclined toward Why you're drawn to it Step 2: Steel-Man the Opposition Present the strongest case AGAINST your inclination: What could go wrong? What are you assuming that might be false? What would a smart critic say? What's the opportunity cost? Under what conditions would this fail? Requirements: Be genuinely adversarial, not token objections Attack the strongest version of your argument Include at least one non-obvious failure mode Step 3: Defend or Pivot After the adversarial pass: Explain why the approach might still be correct despite objections What conditions make this the right choice? What would need to be true for alternatives to win? OR: Acknowledge the objections changed your recommendation Step 4: Present with Confidence Calibration Final recommendation should include: Clear recommendation with reasoning Key assumptions that must hold Conditions that would invalidate this choice Monitoring signals to watch for Output Format
Decision: [What's being decided]
Initial Inclination [Approach] because [reasons]
Adversarial Challenge ** Against this approach: ** - [Strong objection 1] - [Strong objection 2] - [Non-obvious failure mode] ** What I might be wrong about: ** - [Assumption that could be false]
Resolution [Why it's still correct OR why I'm changing recommendation]
Recommendation: [Final choice]
- **
- Key assumptions:
- **
- [What must be true]
- -
- **
- Watch for:
- **
- [Signals this was wrong]
- Relationship to Other Tools
- reasoning-verifier
-
- Post-hoc verification of completed reasoning
- devils-advocate
- Pre-commitment challenge before reasoning solidifies Use both: devils-advocate during planning, reasoning-verifier after execution Underlying Principle LLMs commit to answers early and rationalize backward. This protocol interrupts that pattern by forcing exploration of the solution space before commitment crystallizes.