| name | adversarial-team-pattern |
| description | Template pattern for multi-agent analysis where agents hold opposing mandates. Use when spawning subagents for complex research, code review, architecture decisions, or risk assessment. Triggers on: 'adversarial team', 'devil's advocate analysis', 'multi-perspective review', 'challenge this decision', 'stress test this plan', 'red team this'. |
| source | ai-berkshire/xbtlin (MIT) — pattern adapted from investment-team.md four-master debate model |
| tier | TIER 2 — CORRECTNESS |
Adversarial Team Pattern
Multi-agent analysis using opposing mandates — not consensus. Agents challenge each other rather than reinforce each other.
Core principle: consensus from multiple agents = one agent with extra compute. Value comes from productive disagreement.
When to use
- High-stakes decisions (architecture, security, major refactor)
- Analysis where confirmation bias is a real risk
- Any time you'd normally just "get a second opinion" (make it an adversarial second opinion)
- Code review of critical paths
- Research where you want to surface what could go wrong, not just what looks right
Do NOT use for: simple lookups, single-file changes, mechanical tasks with a clear right answer.
Team structure
Spawn these roles in a single message (parallel, run_in_background: true):
ROLE A — Advocate
Mandate: Build the strongest case FOR the proposal.
Find evidence that supports it. Assume it will work.
Deliver: 3–5 concrete supporting arguments with evidence.
ROLE B — Challenger
Mandate: Find everything wrong with the proposal.
Assume it will fail. Find the weakest points.
Deliver: 3–5 specific failure modes or risks with evidence.
ROLE C — Constraint Finder
Mandate: Find what's missing, what's not accounted for,
what the other two missed. Be the skeptic of both sides.
Deliver: unknowns, edge cases, unstated assumptions.
ROLE D — Synthesizer (run AFTER A, B, C complete)
Mandate: Read all three reports. Produce a forced conclusion.
Cannot say "it depends". Must pick a side or a modified path.
Deliver: verdict + confidence % + 1 concrete next action.
Execution template
Analyze [TOPIC] using adversarial team pattern.
Agent A (Advocate): Make the strongest case FOR [TOPIC].
Find 3–5 concrete supporting arguments with evidence.
Do not hedge. Assume success.
Agent B (Challenger): Find everything wrong with [TOPIC].
Find 3–5 specific failure modes or risks.
Assume failure. Do not soften findings.
Agent C (Constraint Finder): Find what A and B both missed.
Surface unknowns, unstated assumptions, edge cases.
Be skeptical of both the advocate and challenger.
After all three complete, Agent D (Synthesizer) reads all reports
and produces a forced conclusion: verdict + confidence % + next action.
No "it depends" in the conclusion.
Output Contract
Advocate findings: [3–5 supporting arguments]
Challenger findings: [3–5 failure modes]
Missing/unknowns: [what neither side saw]
VERDICT: [clear position — not neutral]
CONFIDENCE: [0–100%]
REASONING: [which argument won and why]
NEXT ACTION: [one concrete step]
In-Skill Verification
Before Synthesizer produces verdict:
- Check: did Advocate cite at least 1 concrete piece of evidence (not just assertion)?
- Check: did Challenger identify at least 1 specific failure mode (not generic risk)?
- If either check fails → Synthesizer notes "incomplete input" in output with confidence ≤ 50%
Anti-patterns
❌ All agents instructed to "analyze objectively" — that's consensus, not adversarial
❌ Synthesizer allowed to conclude "both sides have merit, consider your context"
❌ Challenger role that softens findings ("on the other hand, it could work if...")
❌ Running agents sequentially where later agents read earlier agents' output (anchoring bias)
❌ Skipping Synthesizer — raw debate without forced conclusion wastes the pattern
Confidence calibration
| Situation | Max confidence |
|---|
| All 3 roles agree | 90% |
| Advocate + Synthesizer agree, Challenger has weak evidence | 75% |
| Split between roles, Synthesizer forced to pick | 60% |
| Missing data flagged by Constraint Finder | 50% |
| Insufficient evidence from any role | 35% |
