| name | adversarial-review |
| description | Use when a claim, plan, spec, doc, or design must be attacked against source evidence before implementation or approval. Uses write tools, shell execution, and may spawn subagents. Invoke with enable_write_tools=true and enable_subagent_tools=true. |
| status | draft |
Adversarial Review Workflow
Trigger
Start when a proposal, claim, workflow, spec, architecture note, or support statement needs skeptical review before implementation or adoption.
Inputs
artifact_type — plan, spec, doc, code diff, design, workflow, or claim set
claim_or_goal — what is being tested
sources — evidence allowed for review
strictness — normal | adversarial
validate — required review output shape
Purpose
Stress the artifact against repo principles, source evidence, and explicit constraints before it hardens into code or policy.
Four Points
- WHAT: Produce a grounded review verdict.
- HOW: Steelman the proposal, attack it from principles/evidence, isolate actionable disagreements.
- DON'T WANT: Vibes-only approval, fake certainty, or hidden assumptions.
- VALIDATE: Findings are classified as supported, contradicted, or inconclusive with exact evidence.
Behavior Scenario
n/a — read-only review workflow.
TDD Mode
n/a — no behavior change is implemented in this workflow.
Steps
- State the artifact under review and the baseline principles.
- Read only the sources needed to test the claims.
- Record advocate and skeptic arguments.
- Classify each important claim as supported, contradicted, or inconclusive.
- Return a verdict, key risks, and the smallest safe recommendation.
Adapters
- Claude Code: markdown workflow only; reviewer and evidence-verifier style agents/skills perform the work.
- OpenCode: markdown workflow only; no workflow runtime claims.
- OMP/Pi: markdown-only guidance.
Exit Gate
Stop only when the artifact has a concrete verdict, evidence-backed findings, and unresolved disagreements are local and explicit.
Failure
Stop and report when the review lacks enough source material, the baseline principles are unclear, or the requested verdict would require speculation.