MIRROR

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:

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

Targeted Reflect

When you invoke /mirror reflect "statement":

1. Analyze keywords in the statement
2. 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
3. Apply selected frameworks
4. Present counterarguments

---

AUTO-EXECUTE Protocol

When this skill is invoked:

1. Identify the target — what recommendation or statement is being challenged
2. Select 3 frameworks — contextually relevant or semi-random
3. Apply each framework genuinely — don't softball the challenges
4. Present the challenges with clear formatting
5. 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.