devils-advocate

Devil's Advocate

Critically examine a research design, methodology, or assumption with 5-7 specific challenges.

Steps

1. Understand the target: Read $ARGUMENTS and any relevant project files (CLAUDE.md, manuscript, estimation code).

1. Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:

• Identification: Could the causal claim be undermined by [specific threat]?
• Specification: What if the functional form is wrong? Alternative specifications?
• Data: Are there sample selection issues? Measurement error concerns?
• Methodology: Could a different estimator give different results? Why this method?
• Assumptions: Which assumptions are most vulnerable? What if they're violated?
• Robustness: What robustness checks are missing?
• External validity: Does this generalize beyond the sample?

1. For each challenge, provide:

• The question
• Why it matters
• Suggested resolution or robustness check
• Severity (Critical / Major / Minor)

1. Summary verdict: Strengths, critical changes needed, and suggested improvements.

Notes

• Be constructive, not destructive.
• Think like a skeptical referee at a top journal.
• Focus on the most impactful challenges first.