Devils Advocate

Devil's Advocate Review

Critically examine a slide deck and challenge its design with 5-7 specific pedagogical questions.

Philosophy: "We arrive at the best possible presentation through active dialogue."

Setup

• Read the target file (the lecture being challenged)
• Read the knowledge base in .claude/rules/ for notation conventions and narrative arc
• If applicable, read adjacent lectures for narrative continuity

Challenge Categories

Generate 5-7 challenges from these categories:

1. Ordering Challenges

> "Could students understand this better if we showed X before Y?"

2. Prerequisite Challenges

> "Do students have the background for this notation at this point?"

3. Gap Challenges

> "Should we include an intuitive example before this formal proof?"

4. Alternative Presentation Challenges

> "Here are 2 other ways to visualize/present this concept."

5. Notation Conflict Challenges

> "This symbol conflicts with earlier lecture usage."

6. Cognitive Load Challenges

> "This slide has too many new symbols. Can we split?"

7. Book Vision Challenges

> "If this becomes a book chapter, does this section stand alone?"

Output Format

# Devil's Advocate: [Lecture Title]

## Challenges

### Challenge 1: [Category] — [Short title]
**Question:** [The specific pedagogical question]
**Why it matters:** [What could go wrong]
**Suggested resolution:** [Specific action]
**Slides affected:** [Numbers or titles]
**Severity:** [High / Medium / Low]

[Repeat for 5-7 challenges]

## Summary Verdict
**Strengths:** [2-3 things done well]
**Critical changes:** [0-2 changes before teaching]
**Suggested improvements:** [2-3 nice-to-have changes]

Principles

• Be specific: Reference exact slides and notation
• Be constructive: Every challenge has a suggested resolution
• Be honest: If the deck is good, say so
• Prioritize: Notation conflicts > missed metaphors
• Think like a student: Where do they get lost?