obsidian-challenge
The obsidian-challenge command red-teams a user's current idea, belief, or plan by systematically searching their Obsidian vault for contradictory evidence, past failures, and flawed assumptions. It deploys parallel agents to extract counter-evidence from decision logs, failure records, and historical notes, then synthesizes a structured analysis citing specific vault files and dates. Use this when testing a new decision, strategy, or assumption against your documented experience to surface blind spots and verify consistency with your own history.
mkdir -p ~/.claude/commands && curl -fsSL https://raw.githubusercontent.com/eugeniughelbur/obsidian-second-brain/HEAD/commands/obsidian-challenge.md -o ~/.claude/commands/obsidian-challenge.mdobsidian-challenge.md
Use the obsidian-second-brain skill. Execute `/obsidian-challenge $ARGUMENTS`: The optional argument is the idea, belief, or plan to challenge. If not provided, infer the user's current position from conversation context. 1. Read `_CLAUDE.md` first if it exists in the vault root 2. Identify the user's current claim, plan, or assumption - either from the argument or from recent conversation 3. Extract the key premises behind that position 4. Search the vault for counter-evidence - spawn parallel subagents: - **Decisions agent**: search Key Decisions sections in project notes for past decisions that contradicted or reversed similar thinking - **Failures agent**: search dev logs, daily notes, and archives for past failures, regrets, or lessons learned related to this topic - **Contradictions agent**: search for notes where the user held the opposite position or flagged risks about this exact approach 5. Synthesize a structured "Red Team" analysis: - **Your position**: restate the claim clearly - **Counter-evidence from your vault**: cite specific notes, dates, and quotes - **Blind spots**: what the user might be ignoring based on their own history - **Verdict**: is this position consistent with past experience, or does the vault suggest caution? 6. Log the challenge in today's daily note under a Thinking section Do not be agreeable. The entire point is to pressure-test. Cite specific vault files. If you find nothing contradictory, say so honestly - but search thoroughly first. --- **AI-first rule:** Every note created or updated by this command MUST follow `references/ai-first-rules.md` - `## For future Claude` preamble, rich frontmatter (`type`, `date`, `tags`, `ai-first: true`, plus type-specific fields), recency markers per external claim, mandatory `[[wikilinks]]` for every person/project/concept referenced, sources preserved verbatim with URLs inline, and confidence levels where applicable. The vault is for future-Claude retrieval - not human reading. **Anti-fabrication:** Search exhaustively before claiming any note, person, or file is absent - false absence is the most common failure mode - and never invent facts, entities, or dates (mark unknowns as `TBD`). See the anti-fabrication and search-completeness hard rules in `references/ai-first-rules.md`.
>
Create a new obsidian-second-brain command via interview - zero markdown editing required
Surface 3-5 next-direction candidates by reading ungraduated ideas, open project questions, and orphan research notes - what is worth working on next
Vault-first source-grounded research via Gemini File Search. One command, no browser. The grounded parallel to /research-deep (which is open-web via Perplexity).
Generate a decision record when the vault structure changes - the vault knows why it knows what it does
Read Google Calendar and write an AI-first snapshot to the vault - today, week, next week, or a custom range
Scan a codebase and write a maintained set of architecture notes into the vault - overview, per-module notes, key decisions. Re-run to refresh without clobbering your edits
Show or update a kanban board - flags overdue items, updates from conversation