name: challenger
description: Devil's advocate workflow that expands perspectives and challenges assumptions
version: "2.0"

settings:
  maxCost: 0.55

steps:
  # Step 1: Extract key claims from the input
  - name: extract_claims
    tool: gemini_analyze_text
    input:
      text: |
        Analyze this statement and extract all key claims:

        ${query}

        Identify:
        1. Primary claim (main assertion)
        2. Supporting claims (sub-assertions)
        3. Implicit assumptions
        4. Confidence level expressed (if any)
        5. Evidence type (anecdotal, statistical, expert opinion, etc.)

        Format as numbered list with categorization.
      type: "general"
    saveToFile: true
    maxTokens: 5000
    output:
      variable: claims_list

  # Step 2: Generate counter-arguments via creative brainstorming
  - name: generate_counter_arguments
    tool: gemini_brainstorm
    input:
      prompt: |
        Claims to challenge:
        ${claims_list}

        Original context:
        ${query}

        Generate:
        1. Direct counter-arguments for each claim
        2. Alternative interpretations
        3. Devil's advocate positions
        4. Edge cases that break the claims
        5. "What if we're looking at this backwards?" scenarios

        Be creative and thorough. Don't just nitpick - find genuinely different perspectives.
    saveToFile: true
    maxTokens: 10000
    output:
      variable: counter_args

  # Step 3: Research alternative perspectives via Perplexity
  - name: research_alternatives
    tool: perplexity_research
    input:
      topic: |
        Alternative perspectives and counter-evidence for:

        ${query}

        Find:
        - Opposing viewpoints from credible sources
        - Historical precedents that contradict
        - Expert opinions that disagree
        - Data that challenges these claims
        - Examples where this approach failed
      depth: "deep"
    saveToFile: true
    maxTokens: 15000
    output:
      variable: alt_perspectives

  # Step 4: Find counter-evidence via Grok search
  - name: find_counter_evidence
    tool: grok_search
    input:
      query: |
        Counter-evidence and criticisms:

        ${query}

        Search for:
        - Recent criticisms or challenges
        - Failed implementations or problems
        - Expert warnings or concerns
        - Contradictory data or research
        - Real-world examples that contradict
      depth: "comprehensive"
    saveToFile: true
    maxTokens: 12000
    output:
      variable: counter_evidence

  # Step 5: Multi-model verification of counter-arguments
  - name: verify_counter_arguments
    tool: openai_brainstorm
    input:
      problem: |
        Evaluate the strength and validity of the following counter-arguments:

        ORIGINAL CLAIMS:
        ${claims_list}

        COUNTER-ARGUMENTS:
        ${counter_args}

        RESEARCH:
        ${alt_perspectives}

        COUNTER-EVIDENCE:
        ${counter_evidence}

        For each counter-argument, assess:
        1. Logical validity (is the reasoning sound?)
        2. Evidence strength (is it backed by credible sources/data?)
        3. Relevance (does it directly challenge the claims?)
        4. Overall strength (weak/moderate/strong)

        Provide a clear assessment of which counter-arguments are most compelling and why.
      style: "systematic"
      reasoning_effort: "high"
    saveToFile: true
    maxTokens: 10000
    output:
      variable: verification

  # Step 6: Executive Summary (using Gemini 2.5 Flash for large context)
  - name: executive-summary
    tool: gemini_analyze_text
    input:
      text: |
        ${claims_list}
        ${counter_args}
        ${alt_perspectives}
        ${counter_evidence}
        ${verification}
      task: |
        Original Statement: ${query}

        Create comprehensive challenger executive summary:

        ## Original Position Summary
        [Summarize the original claims in 2-3 sentences]

        ## Counter-Arguments by Claim
        [For top 3 claims: counter-argument + strength + evidence]

        ## Alternative Perspectives
        [Different ways to view this entirely]

        ## "What if we're backwards?" Analysis
        [Explore opposite assumptions]

        ## Strongest Challenges
        [Top 3 most compelling counter-arguments with evidence]

        ## Verdict
        - **Original Position Strength:** [0-100%]
        - **Challenge Strength:** [0-100%]
        - **Recommended Action:** [Accept/Reject/Modify/Investigate Further]

        ## Recommended Modifications
        [How to strengthen the original position or find middle ground]

        Keep under 2500 words for Claude Code.
    maxTokens: 8000
    output:
      variable: challenge_report

output:
  format: detailed