From 97d8a520d391a77a1e0099e403f4a9bbea8ee21b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Grigory Panov Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 13:12:06 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Add challenge-premise red-team review prompt Add .agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md, a reusable prompt for red-teaming a change that rests on a load-bearing assumption: state the assumption, try to disprove it with repo config/docs, and check whether the repo already solves the problem another way. Runs alongside the normal correctness review. Matches the existing .agent/prompts/outdated-agent-rules.md style (plain prose, no frontmatter). Prompts are invoked on demand, so no rules/cursor symlink. Co-authored-by: Isaac --- .agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+) create mode 100644 .agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md diff --git a/.agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md b/.agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..f13047e7b85 --- /dev/null +++ b/.agent/prompts/challenge-premise.md @@ -0,0 +1,10 @@ +Use this prompt to red-team a change that rests on a load-bearing assumption — a claim about how a tool, API, the repo, or the codebase behaves. Run it alongside the normal correctness review, not instead of it. + +Your job is to argue this PR should NOT be merged. Assume the implementation is correct; do not re-check it. Instead: + +- State the change's load-bearing assumption explicitly: the one claim that, if false, makes the change unnecessary or wrong. +- Try to disprove that assumption with evidence — the repo's config, symlinks, file layout, existing rules, and official tool or library docs. Cite what you find. +- Explain what makes the change redundant, unnecessary, or worse than the status quo. +- Identify the simplest alternative, and check whether the repo already solves this another way. + +If the premise holds after investigation and the change is worth merging, say so plainly instead of manufacturing objections.