| name | adversarial-review |
| description | Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning. |
| allowed-tools | Read, Write, Edit, Bash, Grep, Glob, WebFetch, WebSearch, Agent, AskUserQuestion |
| graph | {"domains":["domain:software-engineering"],"skillAreas":["skill-area:agentic-loops","skill-area:orchestration-loop"],"workflows":["workflow:feature-development"],"topics":["topic:developer-experience"],"roles":["role:tech-lead","role:backend-engineer"]} |
- For final comprehensive cross-unit review
- When verifying spec compliance of any implementation
Key Differences from Collaborative Review
| Aspect | Collaborative | Adversarial |
|---|
| Goal | Help improve code | Verify spec compliance |
| Verdict | Suggestions | Binary PASS/FAIL |
| Evidence | Optional | Required (file:line) |
| Reviewer | Can be reused | Must be fresh |
| Context | Shared | Independent |
Fresh Reviewer Rule
On re-review after FAIL, a NEW reviewer instance spawns with no memory of the previous review. This prevents anchoring bias where a reviewer fixates on previously identified issues.
Anti-Patterns
- Reusing reviewers after FAIL
- Passing previous findings to new reviewers
- Providing subjective or advisory feedback
- Accepting partial compliance as PASS
Tool Use
Invoke as part of: methodologies/metaswarm/metaswarm-execution-loop (Phase 3)
