CO
counterargument
>
Install
mkdir -p .claude/skills/counterargument && curl -L -o skill.zip "https://agentskills.codes/api/skills/download/16405" && unzip -o skill.zip -d .claude/skills/counterargument && rm skill.zipInstalls to .claude/skills/counterargument
Activation
This is the description your AI agent reads to decide when to run this skill — the better it matches your request, the more reliably it fires.
Generates rigorous devil's advocate critiques from methodological, theoretical, and practical perspectives. Use when the user asks to challenge their own work, find weaknesses, stress-test assumptions, anticipate reviewer objections, or argue against their research claims. Run BEFORE writing a draft for stronger papers.321 chars✓ has a “when” triggerlonger than Claude Code's old 250-char listing cap (fine on current versions)
About this skill
Counterargument Generation
Generate adversarial critiques to stress-test research claims before writing or submitting.
Perspectives
| Perspective | Icon | Focus |
|---|---|---|
| Methodological | 🔬 | Study design, measurement validity, statistical approach, reproducibility |
| Theoretical | 📚 | Conceptual framework, alternative explanations, literature gaps |
| Practical | ⚙️ | Feasibility, generalizability, real-world applicability, ethical concerns |
Workflow
- Identify the core claims — extract the main hypotheses or arguments
- Generate 4–6 critiques — at least one per perspective, more for weaker claims
- Rate severity — HIGH (fatal flaw), MEDIUM (significant concern), LOW (minor point)
- Provide rebuttal strategy — for each critique, suggest how to respond or strengthen the research
Output Format
# ⚔️ Counterargument Analysis
## Summary
[2–3 sentences: overall assessment of the research's vulnerability to critique]
## Counterarguments
### 📚 Theoretical Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
**Challenged Claim:** [Exact claim being challenged]
**Critique:** [Specific, evidence-grounded critique. Reference timescales, measurement limits,
alternative frameworks, or published contradictory evidence where possible.]
**Rebuttal Strategy:** [Concrete suggestion: what experiment, analysis, or argument would
address this critique]
---
### 🔬 Methodological Critique — [SHORT TITLE]
...
Quality criteria
- Specific: Reference exact claims, timescales, measurements — not vague "this is uncertain"
- Grounded: Connect to actual limitations in the content, not generic criticism
- Expert-level: Write as a senior reviewer at a top journal would
- Constructive: Every critique ends with a path forward (rebuttal strategy)
Examples of strong vs weak critiques
Weak: "The sample size might be too small."
Strong: "The proposed sample of n=15 animals achieves 80% power only for effect sizes of η²≥0.25. Given the typical effect sizes in STDP studies (η²=0.10–0.15, e.g., Bi & Poo 1998), this is underpowered. A power analysis targeting η²=0.12 would require n=38 per condition."