kg-challenge - SKILL.md Agent Skill

name: kg-challenge description: "This skill should be used when the user asks to stress-test, challenge, falsify, or argue against a wiki claim, decision, heuristic, or assumption, says '반박해줘', '이 주장 검증해줘', 'devil's advocate', or invokes /kg-challenge. Uses only evidence already in the knowledge base — never fabricates doubt." trigger: /kg-challenge

/kg-challenge — Devil's Advocate

Argue against a stated claim using only evidence from the knowledge base. The goal is not to be right — it's to stress-test a belief before it calcifies into received truth.

Activate When

User asks "반박해줘", "이 주장 검증해줘", "devil's advocate", "stress-test"
Before a major decision that depends on a wiki claim
When a heuristic or decision page has not been challenged in 30+ days
After 3+ ingests touching the same concept (claim has accumulated weight, deserves scrutiny)
User explicitly asks for counter-argument

Do Not Activate When

User wants broad pattern surfacing → /kg-reflect (challenge is narrow drill, reflect is broad scan)
User wants to query → /kg-query
User wants to find missing connections → /kg-connect
The claim has no concrete target (vague like "maybe X is wrong") → ask for clarification first

Flow

Pick target claim:
- If user provides claim text: use it verbatim
- Otherwise auto-pick: highest-confidence inferred edge, OR most central concept (highest in-degree in graph), OR most-cited page in last 10 log entries
Gather supporting evidence: read the page itself + 3-5 pages that link to it. Note explicit > [!claim] callouts and supported_by relations.
- Deterministic harvest: run python3 ~/.claude/skills/kg/schema/tools/extract_claims.py wiki/ --types=claim,evidence --page=<target> to enumerate all callouts on the target page before LLM-side reading.
Gather contradicting evidence: search wiki for terms that would weaken the claim (negations, alternatives, tradeoff discussions). Check for > [!warning] Tension callouts and contradicted_by relations.
- Deterministic harvest: python3 ~/.claude/skills/kg/schema/tools/extract_claims.py wiki/ --types=tension,warning to enumerate all tensions wiki-wide.
Present counter-argument: structured as: (a) the claim restated, (b) strongest single piece of contradicting evidence with citation, (c) 1-2 weaker contradictions, (d) the residual support that survives.
Ask the operative question: "Does this change anything, or does the original claim still hold?"

graphify integration (when available)

If graphify-out/graph.json exists AND mtime < 7 days:

Call get_neighbors(<claim_concept>) to objectively enumerate adjacent nodes (potential supporting/contradicting evidence sources)
Call shortest_path(<claim>, <known_alternative>) to verify the claim isn't trivially close to its alternative (which would weaken it)
If graph stale (≥7d) or absent, fall back to wiki-only search and note in Caveats.

Quality bar (must pass before reporting)

Counter-argument cites at least 1 wiki page (no fabricated counter-claims)
If no contradicting evidence found, say so explicitly — do NOT manufacture doubt
"Devil's advocate ≠ contrarian": only argue against what evidence allows

Filing rule

If the challenge surfaces material contradiction (verdict = weakened or revise), file the exchange to wiki/queries/challenge-<date>-<slug>.md. If claim survives unchanged, do not file (no signal worth keeping).

Distinction from related ops

/kg-reflect surfaces tensions across many pages (broad scan)
/kg-challenge stress-tests a single specific claim (narrow drill)
If reflect finds a tension, follow up with challenge on the most central claim involved

Output Contract

Claim under challenge:
<verbatim or paraphrase>

Current support:
- Strongest: [[page#section]]
- Other support: <N citations>

Contradicting evidence found:
- Strongest contradiction: [[page#section]] | none found
- Weaker signals: <list>

Counter-argument:
<short structured argument>

Residual support that survives:
<what holds despite contradictions>

Verdict (you decide): claim survives | claim weakened | claim should be revised | insufficient evidence

Confidence: high | medium | low

Caveats:
- <graph stale | small wiki | no contradicting evidence | none>

Filed to wiki: yes (wiki/queries/challenge-<date>-<slug>.md) | no (no material contradiction)

Next command:
- <none | /kg-schema propose <update> | edit [[page]] | /kg-reflect>

Exceptions and Escalation

No contradicting evidence found → say "No contradicting evidence found in the knowledge base." Do not invent doubt.
Claim too vague → ask one clarification question OR auto-select a narrower claim from the wiki and report what was selected.
Challenge changes a Decision or Heuristic → do NOT edit the page. File a challenge note and ask user (per Authority Matrix: page status change = Human).
Claim cites zero wiki pages → flag as "claim has no documented support in wiki — challenge results would be from external opinion only".
Wiki absent → suggest /kg-init + /kg-ingest first; cannot challenge without evidence base.

Quality Gates

Before final answer:

At least 1 wiki page cited per claim/contradiction
Verdict explicitly states one of 4 options
If filed, path noted in Output Contract
No fabricated contradictions