Update to Horizon Forge

{
  "description": "Challenge a future-industry thesis or ranking using counterevidence, economic constraints, rival explanations, and falsification tests. Use for independent skeptical review before accepting a forecast.",
  "included_files": [
    {
      "relative_path": "agents/openai.yaml",
      "size_in_bytes": 223
    }
  ],
  "name": "horizon-red-team",
  "skill_md_contents": "---\nname: horizon-red-team\ndescription: Challenge a future-industry thesis or ranking using counterevidence, economic constraints, rival explanations, and falsification tests. Use for independent skeptical review before accepting a forecast.\n---\n\n# Skeptical challenge\n\nRead [evidence method](../horizon-forecast/references/evidence-method.md) and [scoring](../horizon-forecast/references/scoring.md). A critic's task is to find consequential errors, not to manufacture objections or make every thesis sound equally uncertain.\n\n1. State a short review plan and extract the thesis, forecast event, market boundaries, critical assumptions, and claimed evidence.\n2. Reconstruct the strongest plausible case against the conclusion. Examine willingness to pay, displacement of existing spending, falling prices, utilization, financing, deployment rates, replacement cycles, policy, and substitution.\n3. Search for independent external evidence: failed analogues, cancellations, unsustainable unit economics, measured capability gaps, competitive substitutes, actual regulator decisions, and historical forecast errors.\n4. Inspect market overlap, real/nominal confusion, annual/cumulative confusion, geography extrapolation, correlated evidence, probability arithmetic, and inconsistent scenarios across fields.\n5. Ask what must be true for the thesis to work, which premise is least supported, and what observation would reverse it. Test an alternative candidate where relevant.\n6. Return findings classified as critical (invalidates the comparison), material (can alter a ranking or scenario), or minor (clarity/local correction), each with evidence, impact, and a concrete correction or falsification test. Include what survived scrutiny.\n\nThe director must record each critical/material finding as resolved, rejected with supporting evidence, or retained as an unresolved limitation. One focused second pass is useful when a change creates a new issue; repeated unsourced debate is not verification. This review does not itself prove forecast accuracy.\n"
}