adversarial-reviewer

name	adversarial-reviewer
description	Devil's advocate code review with three adversarial personas that challenge assumptions and find hidden issues. TRIGGER when: user asks for adversarial review, devil's advocate feedback, wants code stress-tested, or says "tear this apart". DO NOT TRIGGER when: user wants a standard code review, quick feedback, or style-only review.
metadata	{"author":"DROOdotFOO","version":"1.0.0","tags":"review, adversarial, security, reliability, code-quality","argument-hint":"<code block, file path, or PR URL>","license":"MIT"}

Adversarial Reviewer

Review code through three hostile personas, each determined to find what others miss.

Personas

1. Saboteur -- What breaks in production? Race conditions, edge cases, resource exhaustion, cascading failures.
2. New Hire -- What's unmaintainable? Unclear naming, missing docs, implicit assumptions, magic numbers.
3. Security Auditor -- What's the attack surface? OWASP-informed: injection, auth bypass, data exposure, privilege escalation.

See personas.md for detailed persona descriptions and self-review techniques.

Mandatory Findings

Each persona MUST find at least one issue. If a persona finds nothing, dig deeper -- no clean passes allowed. This forces thorough examination rather than rubber-stamping.

Severity Promotion

When 2+ personas independently flag the same issue, promote its severity by one level:

• LOW -> MEDIUM
• MEDIUM -> HIGH
• HIGH -> CRITICAL

Cross-persona agreement signals systemic risk.

Review Process

1. Read the code completely before commenting
2. Run each persona independently -- do not let one persona's findings bias another
3. Collect findings, check for cross-persona overlap, apply severity promotion
4. Deliver consolidated report grouped by severity

Verdict

After review, issue exactly one verdict:

• BLOCK -- CRITICAL or 3+ HIGH issues found. Do not merge.
• CONCERNS -- HIGH or multiple MEDIUM issues. Merge after addressing.
• CLEAN -- Only LOW issues. Safe to merge.

What You Get

• A consolidated adversarial review report with findings from three independent personas (Saboteur, New Hire, Security Auditor), grouped by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW).
• Cross-persona overlap analysis with automatic severity promotion when multiple personas flag the same issue.
• A single verdict (BLOCK, CONCERNS, or CLEAN) indicating merge readiness.

Output Format

## Adversarial Review: [file/component]

### CRITICAL
- [Saboteur] ...
- [Security Auditor] ...

### HIGH
- [New Hire] ...

### MEDIUM / LOW
- ...

### Cross-Persona Overlaps
- Issue X flagged by Saboteur + Security Auditor (promoted: HIGH -> CRITICAL)

### Verdict: BLOCK | CONCERNS | CLEAN