SECURITY REVIEW
Not yet assessed
Review the original instructions and requested permissions before installing.
No security review is available for this catalog entry yet.
Agent Development · Testing / AGENT SKILL
adversarial-review
0
Run cross-model adversarial code reviews and synthesize findings into a verdict.
Adversarial code review using cross-model approach. Spawns reviewers on the opposing model (Claude uses Codex, Codex uses Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Produces a synthesized verdict with findings and lead judgment. Triggers: "adversarial review".
Understand the trade-offs.
SKILL QUALITY
Not yet assessed
How clearly the skill guides your agent, how complete its workflow is, and how you can check the outcome.
No quality assessment is available for this catalog entry yet.
The full skill.
Original instructions from the publisher’s SKILL.md
# Adversarial Review Spawn reviewers on the **opposite model** to challenge work. Reviewers attack from distinct lenses grounded in brain principles. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict — do NOT make changes. **Hard constraint:** Reviewers MUST run via the opposite model's CLI (`codex exec` or `claude -p`). Do NOT use subagents, the Agent tool, or any internal delegation mechanism as reviewers — those run on *your own* model, which defeats the purpose. ## Step 1 — Load Principles Read `brain/principles.md`. Follow every `[[wikilink]]` and read each linked principle file. These govern reviewer judgments. ## Step 2 — Determine Scope and Intent Identify what to review from context (recent diffs, referenced plans, user message). Determine the **intent** — what the author is trying to achieve. This is critical: reviewers challenge whether the work *achieves the intent well*, not whether the intent is correct. State the intent explicitly before proceeding. Assess change size: | Size | Threshold | Reviewers | |------|-----------|-----------| | Small | < 50 lines, 1-2 files | 1 (Skeptic) | | Medium | 50-200 lines, 3-5 files | 2 (Skeptic + Architect) | | Large | 200+ lines or 5+ files | 3 (Skeptic + Architect + Minimalist) | Read `references/reviewer-lenses.md` for lens definitions. ## Step 3 — Detect Model and Spawn Reviewers Create a temp directory for reviewer output: ```sh REVIEW_DIR=$(mktemp -d /tmp/adversarial-review.XXXXXX) ``` Determine which model you are, then spawn reviewers on the opposite: **If you are Claude** — spawn Codex reviewers via `codex exec`: ```sh codex exec --skip-git-repo-check -o "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" "prompt" 2>/dev/null ``` Use `--profile edit` only if the reviewer needs to run tests. Default to read-only. Run with `run_in_background: true`, monitor via `TaskOutput` with `block: true, timeout: 600000`. **If you are Codex** — spawn Claude reviewers via `claude` CLI: ```sh claude -p "prompt" > "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" 2>/dev/null ``` Run with `run_in_background: true`. Name each output file after the lens: `skeptic.md`, `architect.md`, `minimalist.md`. Build each reviewer's prompt using the template in `references/reviewer-prompt.md`. ## Step 4 — Verify and Synthesize Verdict Before reading reviewer output, log which CLI was used and confirm the output files exist: ```sh echo "reviewer_cli=codex|claude" ls "$REVIEW_DIR"/*.md ``` If any output file is missing or empty, note the failure in the verdict — do not silently skip a reviewer. Read each reviewer's output file from `$REVIEW_DIR/`. Deduplicate overlapping findings. Produce a single verdict using the format in `references/verdict-format.md`. ## Step 5 — Render Judgment After synthesizing the reviewers, apply your own judgment. Using the stated intent and brain principles as your frame, state which findings you would accept and which you would reject — and why. Reviewers are adversarial by design; not every finding warrants action. Call out false positives, overreach, and findings that mistake style for substance. Append the Lead Judgment section to the verdict (see `references/verdict-format.md`).