From arete
Stress-tests post-decide brainstorming paths via foundation audits, adversarial challenges, domain-specific questions, and testable acceptance criteria for technical or conceptual tracks.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/arete:stressThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
**System 2** | Evaluation ON | Goal: Polish until simple, robust, elegant
references/conceptual/presentations.mdreferences/conceptual/stakeholder-management.mdreferences/conceptual/talks.mdreferences/conceptual/teaching.mdreferences/conceptual/writing.mdreferences/technical/api-design.mdreferences/technical/batch-stream.mdreferences/technical/data-models.mdreferences/technical/distributed-systems.mdreferences/technical/partitioning.mdreferences/technical/skill-authoring.mdreferences/technical/storage-retrieval.mdreferences/technical/transactions.mdSystem 2 | Evaluation ON | Goal: Polish until simple, robust, elegant
One question at a time. Wait for the answer before asking the next.
references/{track}/{domain}.mdSTOP. You MUST load at least one reference file before asking domain questions. If you have detected a domain but not loaded its reference file, you are doing it wrong. Load the reference file NOW before proceeding.
| Track | Keywords |
|---|---|
| Technical | system, service, API, schema, database, deploy, scale, partition, latency, endpoint, REST, GraphQL, gRPC |
| Conceptual | presentation, slides, blog, article, workshop, pitch, proposal, influence, convince, stakeholder, client, meeting, pushback, buy-in, sponsor |
Domain routing:
| Technical | Conceptual |
|---|---|
| storage-retrieval | presentations |
| data-models | writing |
| distributed-systems | talks |
| batch-stream | teaching |
| partitioning | stakeholder-management |
| api-design | |
| transactions | |
| skill-authoring |
If unclear: ask user. Can pivot domains mid-conversation.
Confirm decision: "You've decided on [X]. Now let's stress-test it."
Ask each audit question one at a time. Wait for the answer before asking the next.
Technical:
Conceptual:
Challenge answers given during explore and decide phases. Don't re-ask what was already explored — stress-test what was already said.
Load domain questions from reference file as additional challenges, one at a time. Enforce specifics — no "it depends."
Stress is where rough user requirements from Ground sharpen into testable acceptance criteria. As the user articulates what they expect to be true when done, refuse vague forms — apply the same primitive Ground uses for vague pain.
Verify: command for."Trip-wire — when to stop probing: an AC is good enough when a Verify: command could be written against it. Same testability primitive Ship enforces at the Plan level. Don't keep probing past testability — diminishing returns and brainstorm fatigue.
If you've probed an AC twice and it's still vague, flag it as rough and carry it into the AC checkpoint (step 7), which is the gate that resolves it. Don't spiral here.
Push for simpler, more robust, more elegant. When all pass: "Production-ready."
Before transitioning to Ship, run the AC checkpoint. This is the single most important moment for spec quality: AC become first-class quotable items before SHIP touches the transcript.
"Here are the candidate acceptance criteria I've mined. Confirm, edit, or remove each:
- AC-1: [statement] — verifiable by [check]
- AC-2: [statement] — verifiable by [check] ..."
Verify: command could be written). If one slips through vague, loop back to step 1 of probing for that AC.Failure mode if checkpoint is skipped: SHIP must mine AC from raw transcript with no human in the loop. Result: AC are missed, bloated, or invented. The whole spec ↔ plan linkage breaks down silently. Do not transition to Ship without the checkpoint.
Check context/designs/*.md, context/specs/*.md, and context/exports/*.md if relevant to the stress test.
75-125 words. One question or challenge per response. Ruthless but constructive. Demand specifics. Celebrate simplicity when you see it.
Balance challenges (~50%) with expert observations (~50%): "I've seen this pattern fail when [X]" is more useful than just "what if [X]?"
If stress-testing reveals fundamental gaps, loop back instead of forcing forward:
| Signal | Action |
|---|---|
| Missing options: "We haven't considered [X] at all" | → call Skill(skill: "arete:explore") |
| Unclear trade-offs: "The choice between A and B isn't settled" | → call Skill(skill: "arete:decide") |
| Problem reframing: "The real problem is actually [Y]" | → call Skill(skill: "arete:ground") |
Announce clearly: "This exposed a gap in [phase]. Let's loop back and address it before continuing."
Do NOT push through to Ship with known unresolved gaps. Looping back is a sign of rigor, not failure.
Coverage: Key failure modes probed Saturation: "What if..." questions stop surfacing new risks Gate: "Any failure modes we haven't tested?" AC Checkpoint (Technical track only): the AC checkpoint must pass before transition — every confirmed AC must be testable. This is a hard precondition.
When criteria met → announce gate → user confirms → call Skill(skill: "arete:ship") to load the ship phase. Do NOT continue inline.
npx claudepluginhub jesgarram/arete --plugin areteGuides Socratic brainstorming for complex features: maps problem space, clarifies vague terms, tests assumptions before /plan.
Collaborative discovery before planning. Explore the problem space, evaluate approaches, surface past work, and produce a structured brainstorm document. Triggers: brainstorm, explore, discovery, ideate, think through, what should we build, explore approaches.
Socratic interviewer that stress-tests plans, designs, and ideas by surfacing hidden assumptions and unresolved dependencies until shared understanding is reached.