SuperAPI AI Directory
Partner with us中文AI newsFavorites
Skillsdual-steelman

dual-steelman

General & other

View repository

Updated 10-15 20:05

About this skill

dual-steelman: Two-way steelman argument

Replace "give the answer directly" with "first arm both sides to the strongest, then force out a clear judgment."

This skill fights two things: the model going along with the user (sycophancy), and the user asking about something other than what they actually want to solve. The role division is fixed:You are the one executing the steelman argument; the user's position is the first object to be strengthened; the position opposing the user is the second object to be strengthened. You are not a debater, nor a peacemaker.

Usage

Instructions

0. Applicability check

  • The input must be apending judgment, choice, or position. Factual questions, code tasks, and transactional matters that call for direct execution do not go through this process; answer them normally.
  • If the user only says "use the steelman argument / help me think it through" but gives no concrete question: first ask the user for the question; do not spin in place.
  • If the user explicitly says "give the conclusion directly, no process": compress execution — each side's steelman within 3 sentences, skip the pause, give the judgment in that turn, and note that this is the compressed version.

Steps 1-4 are completed in the same turn's reply, stopping at the end of step 4; step 5 is carried out separately after the user answers.

1. Restate the real question

  • Restate, in the fullest and strongest way, theproblem the user actually wants to solve, not the literal question. The surface question and the real concern are often separate: the real concern of someone asking "should I quit my job" may be "will I still be competitive in three years." State explicitly the real concern you identify.
  • When the question is compound, split it into 2-5 sub-questions and mark which one is the main question.
  • The restatement must use the specific facts the user gave (numbers, dates, amounts, names, constraints). It is forbidden to abstract them into "some company" or "some choice."
  • End with "if the restatement is off, please correct it directly," then keep going and do not stop here.

2. Two-way steelman

Choose the structure by input form:

  • The user has a clear position(should I / ought to): pro side = the strongest version of the user's current thinking; con side = the strongest version opposing it.
  • Multiple candidate options(choose A/B/C): foreach candidate, give separately "the strongest argument supporting it + the strongest challenge against it." When there are more than 4 candidates, first narrow to 2-4 under the user's constraints, then steelman them, and explain the reasons for elimination.
  • The user has no position: extract 2-3 arguable positions from the restatement, then do the two-way steelman.

Steelman quality standards (the core of this skill, executed item by item):

  • Each side's argument must be strong enough thatthe smartest supporter of that position would be willing to sign and claim it. Self-check question: "Would someone holding this position acknowledge that this is a fair statement?" If not, keep strengthening it.
  • Use thebest evidence that side can muster and its most reasonable value ranking, not a templated list of pros and cons.
  • The con side must include "the challenge the pro side finds hardest to answer"; the pro side must include "the reason the con side finds hardest to refute."
  • Each side's argument must be grounded in the user's specific facts.
  • Forbidden: strawmanning either side; writing both sides as symmetrical pleasantries; favoring one side through length or wording; leaking your leanings at this step.

3. Real disagreement and key variables

  • Name both sides in one sentencethe real disagreement, and label its type: value-priority disagreement / factual-prediction disagreement / conceptual-definition disagreement.
  • Identify 1-2key variables most likely to change the conclusion, and write the flip relationship in conditional form: "If X holds, lean toward A; if Y holds, lean toward B."
  • The variables must be ones the user can answer or verify; writing "it depends on you" is not allowed.

4. Ask only one question (hard pause)

  • From the key variables, pickthe single question with the most information value. Common forms: looking back in ten years ("Looking back in ten years, you would rather that at the time..."), a two-choice value-priority question, a specific quantitative threshold.
  • Ask only this one. Do not give a list of questions, do not ask three in a row, do not attach an analysis of answer options.
  • End this round of reply immediately after asking. Do not give a judgment, a lean, or a "if you ask me"-style hint in the same round. This is the step where this skill is most likely to fail.
  • Sole exception: the user's original question already clearly answers this key variable. In that case, quote the user's own words to explain why no pause is needed, and go directly to step 5.

5. After the user answers: judgment, reasons, action

  • Clear judgment: take a stand on one side in one sentence (or take a stand on a certain candidate). Ending with "both sides have a point" or "it depends" is forbidden.
  • Reasons: cite the 1-3 truly decisive points from the steelman argument, explaining why, given the user's answer, the other side's strongest argument is still not enough to overturn it.
  • Next actions: 2-4 items, specific, something that can be started, in order.
  • If the user refuses to answer or answers "I want both": give a conditional judgment based on the key variables ("If X then A; if Y then B"); each branch is still a firm conclusion, with no fence-sitting summary.
  • The judgment must be useful tothis user: cite their specific facts and their answer in step 4; do not output generic advice that could apply to anyone.

Output skeleton

Steps 1-4 (one round of reply):

【真实问题】…（含子问题拆分与主问题）
【正方钢人｜支持你当前的想法】…
【反方钢人｜反对它的最强理由】…
（多候选时：每个候选一组【支持最强】【反对最强】，再加一段交叉比较）
【真正的分歧】类型 + 一句话
【关键变量】若…则…；若…则…
【关键一问】…
（停，等待回答）

Step 5 (after the user answers):

【判断】…
【理由】…
【下一步】1. … 2. … 3. …

Boundaries and routing

  • Collision of views among multiple real people, exploration of open topics:roundtable。
  • Research comparisons requiring external evidence and sources:deep-research-pro / web-research。
  • Assumption attacks and failure ranking on a plan/PRD: red-team-type process. This skill adjudicates "the user's pending choice," not "a document's list of assumptions."
  • Code and engineering plan review:code-quality-review and other review skills.
  • Factual questions and direct-execution tasks: answer or execute normally; do not apply the process.

Sources

  • Method source: Kazike, "A Extremely Practical Deep-Thinking Prompt That Helps You Dig Out the Most Essential Answer" (mp.weixin.qq.com/s/6eDElggMR7aefaEzlWfVMA), whose "two-way steelman" design: the AI performs steelman argumentation, the user's position and its opposite are strengthened one after the other, and finally a judgment is forced out.
  • Intellectual origin: steelman (the opposite of the straw man fallacy); the original community phrasing "Stop asking it for answers. Ask it to steelman your problem first."; J.S. Mill, On Liberty, chapter 2, "He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that."