| name | adversarialize |
| description | Perform a task with a worker agent, critique it with an adversary agent, and apply the accepted critiques with a reconciler agent. |
| argument-hint | [task or /command to run adversarially] |
| allowed-tools | Agent |
Perform the given task by spawning a worker agent, then an adversary agent to
critique the worker's output, then a reconciler agent to apply the critiques you
accept. You orchestrate and judge; the agents do the work.
$ARGUMENTS
Workflow
- Identify the task:
- The task in
$ARGUMENTS
- Otherwise, the most recent task under discussion in the conversation
- If neither exists, ask the user for the task and stop
- Spawn a worker agent with the task verbatim plus any conversation context it
needs. Instruct it to perform the task and return what it changed and the
reasoning behind non-obvious decisions
- If the task is a slash command, instruct the worker to read that skill's
SKILL.md (under
~/.claude/skills/ or the project's .claude/skills/),
run any !-fenced context blocks as commands, and follow the skill with
the given arguments
- Spawn an adversary agent with the original task and the worker's report.
Instruct it to:
- Inspect the worker's actual output (diff, files, artifacts), not just the
report
- Make no changes: read, run read-only checks, and report
- Try to refute the work: bugs, gaps, unmet requirements, and unjustified
decisions
- Return a numbered list of findings, each with location, problem, and
suggested fix. Return "no findings" if the work holds up
- Evaluate each finding yourself; don't delegate this step. Accept a finding
only if:
- It's correct. Verify uncertain claims by reading the relevant code or
output
- Fixing it serves the original task rather than the adversary's taste
- If no findings are accepted, report the worker's result plus the rejected
findings with reasons, and stop
- Spawn a reconciler agent with the worker's report and only the accepted
findings. Instruct it to apply exactly those fixes and nothing else
- Report the worker's result, each finding as accepted or rejected with the
reason, and what the reconciler changed
Guidelines
- Run the agents sequentially; each stage depends on the previous one
- Don't perform the task, the critique, or the fixes yourself. Read only to
verify adversary claims in step 4
- Keep the adversary independent: pass it the task and the worker's report, not
your own opinion of the work
- Findings about the task statement itself (ambiguous or contradictory
requirements) go to the user, not the reconciler
- If the reconciler reports changes beyond the accepted findings, spawn it again
to revert the extras before reporting