From thinking-tools
Runs parallel agents to gather positive/negative code evidence for a statement, synthesizes objectively, verifies via file reads/lines. For architecture reviews, bug claims, performance analysis.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/thinking-tools:dialecticThis skill is limited to the following tools:
The summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
Objective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.
Objective analysis of a statement by running two agents with opposing goals in parallel, then synthesizing findings.
CRITICAL: Both Task tool calls MUST be in a single message for true parallel execution. Do NOT use run_in_background. Do NOT launch sequentially. Foreground agents in the same message run in parallel and block until both complete.
Agent 1 (Thesis) — find all POSITIVE evidence:
Agent 2 (Antithesis) — find all NEGATIVE evidence:
Both agents must provide specific file paths and line numbers when analyzing code.
After both agents complete, synthesize findings into an objective conclusion:
CRITICAL — after presenting the synthesis, verify it against actual implementation:
Architecture decisions:
/thinking-tools:dialectic this microservice split improves maintainability
Bug analysis:
/thinking-tools:dialectic the connection pool fixes the timeout issue
Performance claims:
/thinking-tools:dialectic caching reduced database load by 80%
Refactoring safety:
/thinking-tools:dialectic extracting this interface simplifies testing
Code review:
/thinking-tools:dialectic this implementation is thread-safe
Review changes:
/thinking-tools:dialectic review the changes in server.go
npx claudepluginhub umputun/cc-thingz --plugin thinking-toolsBuilds the strongest evidence-based counter-argument against a user's assertion using repo-specific data. Useful for high-stakes decisions, design reviews, or when the user invites pushback.
Challenges claims by verifying accuracy, completeness, and reasoning against code, docs, or data. Use for sanity-checking decisions, evaluating assertions, or 'are you sure?' prompts.
Cross-examines non-trivial decisions with a fresh-context adversary. Use before committing high-stakes code, architecture, or irreversible operations when correctness outweighs speed.