메뉴
Three-agent adversarial bug finder. Hunter overclaims every issue it can find, Skeptic disproves what it can, Referee arbitrates what survives. Scoring incentives force each role to behave honestly.
Codex 또는 Claude로 설치 이 Prompt를 복사해 Codex, Claude 또는 다른 어시스턴트에 붙여 넣으면 Skill 페이지를 검토하고 설치를 진행할 수 있습니다.
SOC 직업 분류 기준
Generate a wide field of ideas, then pressure-test them. Five generators diverge, two challengers prune the weak ones, three synthesizers rank what survives.
Dialectic process for reviewing, brainstorming, comparing tradeoffs, or stress-testing plans. Configurable modes, agent counts, and expert lenses.
Execute a pre-defined plan using implementation agents (no design changes)
Capture structured learnings (gotcha, pattern, decision, bug-fix) as JSONL per project. Cross-project searchable.
Assume the plan failed — then explain why. Three pessimists write failure narratives, two optimists rebut, a risk assessor weighs which failure modes are real.
Adversarial stress-test of code, a plan, or an argument. Three critics attack, one defender rebuts, a referee judges, then a hostile auditor attacks the synthesis itself.
| name | bug-hunt |
| description | Three-agent adversarial bug finder. Hunter overclaims every issue it can find, Skeptic disproves what it can, Referee arbitrates what survives. Scoring incentives force each role to behave honestly. |
A three-phase adversarial bug detection process. Unlike dialectic-review (which evaluates decisions), this is designed to find defects. The key structural innovation is asymmetric scoring — each agent has different incentives that force different behaviors.
| Flag | Effect | Default |
|---|---|---|
--lens <expert> | Expert focus (e.g., security, performance, data-integrity) | none (general) |
Everything not matching a flag is the target — file paths, a module description, or a codebase area.
--lens is set, note the expert focus for all three agents.CRITICAL: Reset context between each phase. Each agent receives ONLY:
Do NOT pass conversation history or your own analysis.
Launch a single agent (Opus) with this prompt:
You are a bug-finding agent. Analyze the provided code thoroughly and identify ALL potential bugs, issues, and anomalies.
Scoring System:
- +1 point: Low impact bugs (minor issues, edge cases, cosmetic problems)
- +5 points: Medium impact bugs (functional issues, data inconsistencies, performance problems)
- +10 points: Critical impact bugs (security vulnerabilities, data loss risks, system crashes)
Your mission: Maximize your score. Be thorough and aggressive in your search. Report anything that *could* be a bug, even if you're not 100% certain. False positives are acceptable — missing real bugs is not.
Output format — for each bug found:
1. Location (file:line or function name)
2. Description of the issue
3. Impact level (Low/Medium/Critical)
4. Points awarded
End with your total score.
GO. Find everything.
If --lens is set, prepend: "Focus especially on {lens} issues, but report all bugs you find."
Launch a single agent (Opus) with the Hunter's output:
You are an adversarial bug reviewer. You will be given a list of reported bugs from another agent. Your job is to DISPROVE as many as possible.
Scoring System:
- Successfully disprove a bug: +[bug's original score] points
- Wrongly dismiss a real bug: -2x [bug's original score] points
Your mission: Maximize your score by challenging every reported bug. For each bug, determine if it's actually a real issue or a false positive. Be aggressive but calculated — the 2x penalty means you should only dismiss bugs you're confident about.
For each bug, you must:
1. Analyze the reported issue
2. Attempt to disprove it (explain why it's NOT a bug)
3. Make a final call: DISPROVE or ACCEPT
4. Show your risk calculation
Output format — for each bug:
- Bug ID and original score
- Your counter-argument
- Confidence level (%)
- Decision: DISPROVE / ACCEPT
- Points gained/risked
End with: total bugs disproved, total bugs accepted as real, your final score.
The remaining ACCEPTED bugs are the verified bug list.
Launch a single agent (Opus) with both Hunter and Skeptic outputs:
You are the final arbiter in a bug review process. You will receive:
1. A list of bugs reported by a Bug Finder agent
2. Challenges/disproves from a Bug Skeptic agent
Important: I have the verified ground truth for each bug. You will be scored:
- +1 point: Correct judgment
- -1 point: Incorrect judgment
Your mission: For each disputed bug, determine the TRUTH. Is it a real bug or not? Your judgment is final and will be checked against the known answer.
For each bug, analyze:
1. The Bug Finder's original report
2. The Skeptic's counter-argument
3. The actual merits of both positions
Output format — for each bug:
- Bug ID
- Bug Finder's claim (summary)
- Skeptic's counter (summary)
- Your analysis
- VERDICT: REAL BUG / NOT A BUG
- Confidence: High / Medium / Low
Final summary: total bugs confirmed as real, total bugs dismissed, list of confirmed bugs with severity.
Be precise. You are being scored against ground truth.
Note: The "ground truth" framing is intentional — it forces epistemic commitment from the Referee rather than hedging.
Present the Referee's confirmed bug list to the user. For each confirmed bug, include:
Do NOT editorialize or add your own assessment — the three-agent process is the assessment.