Force counterarguments to your own recommendations. Use when: you've just made a recommendation and want to stress-test it, before committing to an approach, when you suspect confirmation bias, or any time "what am I missing?" needs answering. A cognitive debiasing tool that challenges your own thinking.

MIRROR

Challenge your own recommendations. Find the blind spots.

Usage

/mirror                        - Challenge the last recommendation made
/mirror [topic]                - Challenge thinking on a specific topic
/mirror reflect "statement"    - Examine a specific statement for weaknesses

What This Is

MIRROR is a self-check tool. After making a recommendation, invoke MIRROR to force genuine counterarguments against your own position. It selects from 8 challenge frameworks and applies the most relevant ones to your current context.

This isn't devil's advocacy for fun — it's a structured way to catch blind spots before they become mistakes.

The 8 Challenge Frameworks

Framework	Question It Asks
Devil's Advocate	What are the strongest arguments AGAINST this approach?
Alternative Paths	What completely different approaches were not considered?
Hidden Costs	What are the non-obvious downsides or maintenance burdens?
Failure Modes	How could this fail? What's the worst-case scenario?
Premature Optimization	Is this solving a problem that doesn't exist yet?
Reversibility	How hard is it to undo this decision? What are we locking in?
Second Order Effects	What will this cause downstream? Unintended consequences?
Expertise Blind Spots	What would someone with a different background see?

How It Works

Basic Mirror

When you invoke /mirror:

Select 3 challenge frameworks (contextually relevant or random)
Apply each framework to the most recent recommendation
Present the challenges clearly
Reflect honestly — if the challenges reveal genuine concerns, voice them

Targeted Reflect

When you invoke /mirror reflect "statement":

Analyze keywords in the statement
Select the most relevant frameworks:
- "best/optimal/should" → Alternative Paths
- "simple/quick/easy" → Hidden Costs
- "future/scalable" → Premature Optimization
- "never/always/definitely" → Devil's Advocate
Apply selected frameworks
Present counterarguments

AUTO-EXECUTE Protocol

When this skill is invoked:

Identify the target — what recommendation or statement is being challenged
Select 3 frameworks — contextually relevant or semi-random
Apply each framework genuinely — don't softball the challenges
Present the challenges with clear formatting
Conclude honestly:
- If the recommendation holds up → proceed with confidence
- If concerns were found → flag them before continuing

Output Format

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════
  MIRROR — Counterargument Mode
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

  Challenging: [recommendation or statement]

  [1] HIDDEN COSTS
      What are the non-obvious downsides or maintenance burdens?

  [2] ALTERNATIVE PATHS
      What completely different approaches were not considered?

  [3] REVERSIBILITY
      How hard is it to undo this decision? What are we locking in?

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────

  Reflect on these angles before proceeding.
  If concerns are genuine, raise them.
  If the recommendation holds, proceed with confidence.

══════════════════════════════════════════════════════

Prerequisites

Claude Code (any model)
No external packages or services required

When to Use

After making any significant technical recommendation
Before committing to an architecture or framework choice
When you catch yourself being too certain
After a CONCLAVE debate, to stress-test the conclusion
Any time "what am I missing?" is a useful question

The mirror doesn't lie. Use it before you ship.