ia-meta-prompting

Structured decision modifiers (/think, /verify, /adversarial, /edge, /confidence, /assumptions, etc.) to stress-test conclusions, evidence, assumptions, alternatives, and edge cases. Use when validating an important design, architecture decision, or ambiguous plan before committing.

Meta-Prompting

Stress-test decisions via /commands or natural language. Commands combine left-to-right: /verify /adversarial. Auto-trigger when context warrants and note which pattern applied. Output a decision record with the conclusion, decisive evidence, alternatives, uncertainty, and the applicable marker (e.g., VERIFIED ANSWER:, REVISED ANSWER:, confidence tier).

Patterns

/think | /show -- Present a concise decision record: conclusion, decisive evidence, alternatives considered, rejection reasons, and material uncertainty. With /think doubt, state what evidence could overturn each material conclusion.

/adversarial | /argue -- After answering, steelman the opposing case. 3 strongest counterarguments ranked by severity. Identify blind spots and unstated assumptions.

/constrain | /strict -- Tight constraints: 3 sentences max, cite sources, no hedging. Override inline: /constrain 5 sentences.

/json | /format -- Respond in valid JSON code block, no surrounding prose unless asked. Default schema:

json

{"analysis": "string", "confidence_score": 85, "methodology": "string", "limitations": ["string"]}

Custom keys: /json {keys: summary, risks, recommendation}

/budget | /deep -- Extended decision record (~500 words) covering evidence, the strongest counterargument, alternatives, trade-offs, and uncertainty, followed by a clearly separated final answer.

/compare | /vs -- Compare options as table. Default dimensions: speed, accuracy, cost, complexity, maintenance. Custom: /compare [dim1, dim2].

/confidence | /conf -- Rate each claim 0-100. Flag below 70 as SPECULATIVE. Group by tier: HIGH (85+), MEDIUM (70-84), LOW (<70). Include assumptions made and rate each 1-10 on confidence.

/edge | /break -- 5+ inputs/scenarios that break the approach. Code: null/empty, concurrency, overflow, encoding, auth bypass. Strategies: market conditions, timing, dependencies. Auto-triggers on: security, validation, parsing contexts.

/verify-think | /check -- Three phases: (1) Answer direct response, (2) Challenge 3 ways it could be wrong, (3) Verify investigate each, update if needed. Mark final as VERIFIED ANSWER: or REVISED ANSWER:. Distinct from the /ia-verify slash command, which runs the full pre-PR verification pipeline. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions, critical choices, "Am I right?"

/flip | /alt -- Identify the approach you'd take by default and state it. Then propose an alternative that uses a different mechanism (different data structure, different layer, different abstraction). State the conditions under which the alternative beats the default. Override: /flip 3 for top 3 alternatives. Auto-triggers on: architecture decisions where the "easy" answer may break at scale.

/assumptions | /presume -- Before answering, list every implicit assumption in the question/task. Then answer with assumptions explicit. The assumption list is often more valuable than the answer. Auto-triggers on: architecture reviews, ambiguous requirements.

/premortem | /postmortem -- Assume the decision/project has already failed. Work backwards: what caused the failure? List 3-5 failure modes by likelihood. Focus on systemic risks, not edge cases.

/blindspot | /unknowns -- For unfamiliar territory (new codebase area, new domain, unfamiliar craft). Surface the user's unknown unknowns: what they'd need to know to prompt well but don't know to ask. Search the codebase/docs first, then report (1) the questions they should be asking, (2) prior art, conventions, and landmines in this area, (3) what "good" looks like here. Goal is to teach enough to prompt better, not to solve the task. Distinct from /adversarial (attacks a proposed answer) and /premortem (assumes the plan failed) -- this runs before an answer exists, aimed at the user's knowledge gaps, not the solution's. Auto-triggers on: "I know nothing about X", "blindspot pass", "unknown unknowns", entering an unfamiliar area.

/tensions | /perspectives -- Answer from two named opposing perspectives (e.g., security engineer vs. shipping PM). Focus output on where they disagree -- that's where the real insight lives. Override roles: /tensions [devops, security].

Combos

/analyze = /think + /edge + /verify-think -- Code reviews, architecture, security-sensitive work. Synthesize findings into a unified recommendation -- don't just concatenate pattern outputs. Auto-triggers on: code review requests.

/trade = /confidence + /adversarial + /edge -- Trade ideas, position analysis, market thesis. Auto-triggers on: trade/position discussions.

Conventions

• Separate combined pattern outputs with ---
• Keep core answer prominent -- patterns enhance, not bury the response
• Present decision-relevant rationale and evidence. Do not narrate private step-by-step reasoning or dead ends.
• Accept new pattern definitions mid-conversation ("Add /eli5 for explain like I'm 5") -- apply for the session

Verify

• Pattern marker present in output (e.g., VERIFIED ANSWER: for /verify)
• Core answer appears before any pattern-output separator (---)
• Decision records distinguish observed evidence, inference, assumptions, and uncertainty