insight-challenge

name	insight-challenge
disable-model-invocation	true
description	Adversarial review of code quality findings. Challenges insights with counter-evidence, verifies claims against source code, and produces structured verdicts. Triggers on 'insight-challenge', 'challenge finding', '审查发现'.
allowed-tools	["Bash","Glob","Grep","Read","Write"]
session-mode	none
version	0.5.55

Insight Challenge

Adversarial review of code quality findings. Challenges insights with counter-evidence, verifies claims against source code, and produces structured verdicts.

适用场景: 当需要对代码审查、质量分析、或架构评估中的发现进行对抗性验证时使用。

Architecture

┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  Insight Challenge (SKILL.md) — Adversarial Review          │
│  → Parse finding → Read source → Challenge → Verdict        │
└─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
                           │
    ┌──────────┬───────────┼───────────┬──────────┐
    ↓          ↓           ↓           ↓          │
┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────┐      │
│Phase 1 │ │Phase 2 │ │Phase 3 │ │Phase 4 │      │
│ Parse  │ │ Source │ │Challenge│ │Verdict │      │
│Finding │ │ Review │ │Analysis │ │Report  │      │
└───┬────┘ └───┬────┘ └───┬────┘ └───┬────┘      │
    │          │          │          │             │
 finding    source     counter-   structured      │
 parsed     code       evidence   verdict         │

Key Design Principles

1. Adversarial by Default: Assume findings may be incorrect; seek counter-evidence first
2. Source-Code Anchored: All claims must be verified against actual code, not assumptions
3. Structured Output: Verdicts follow a fixed schema for downstream consumption
4. Fair Challenge: If evidence supports the finding, confirm it; don't manufacture doubt
5. Transparent Reasoning: Show the chain of evidence and reasoning

Finding Input Format

Findings can be provided as JSON or structured text:

{
  "id": "HIGH-01",
  "title": "知识边类型 resolves/documents 未在 types.ts 声明",
  "severity": "high",
  "file": "src/graph/kg/db/types.ts",
  "line": 58,
  "description": "issue-extractor 使用 'resolves' 边类型...",
  "evidence": "types.ts KnowledgeEdgeKind: defines, constrains...",
  "suggestion": "补齐缺失的边类型声明",
  "design_ref": "Gap 2 — 12 CodeEdgeKind + 9 KnowledgeEdgeKind"
}

Or structured text:

HIGH-01: 知识边类型 resolves/documents 未在 types.ts 声明
Severity: high
File: src/graph/kg/db/types.ts:58
Claim: issue-extractor 使用 'resolves' 边类型但未在类型系统中声明
Evidence: types.ts KnowledgeEdgeKind 列表中缺少 'resolves'

Execution Flow

Phase 1: Parse Finding

1. Extract finding ID, title, severity, file reference, and claims
2. Identify all verifiable assertions:
   • File existence claims
   • Code structure claims (types, functions, variables)
   • Behavioral claims (usage patterns, dependencies)
   • Design conformance claims
3. Create verification checklist

Phase 2: Source Review

1. Read the referenced file(s) at the specified lines
2. Search for related code using Grep/Glob
3. Document actual state of the code:
   • What types/functions actually exist
   • What values are actually declared
   • What the actual implementation looks like
4. Compare claims against reality

Phase 3: Challenge Analysis

For each claim in the finding:

1. Seek confirming evidence: Does the source code support this claim?
2. Seek disconfirming evidence: Does the source code contradict this claim?
3. Check for misinterpretation: Could the claim be based on outdated code or misunderstanding?
4. Verify design references: Are cited design docs accurate?

Challenge strategies:

• Direct contradiction: Source code explicitly shows the opposite
• Context omission: Finding omits relevant context that changes the interpretation
• Stale reference: Finding references code that has been updated
• Miscounted: Numeric claims (missing N types) are incorrect
• Scope error: Finding applies wrong scope (e.g., confuses edge types with language types)

Phase 4: Verdict Report

Produce structured output:

{
  "finding_id": "HIGH-01",
  "challenge_result": "overturned|weakened|confirmed",
  "confidence": 95,
  "reasoning": "Detailed explanation of why the finding was challenged or confirmed",
  "counter_evidence": [
    "Source file line 64: 'resolves' IS declared in KnowledgeEdgeKind",
    "Design doc specifies 20 edge types, not 28"
  ],
  "supporting_evidence": [],
  "adjusted_severity": "none|high|medium|low",
  "recommendation": "Dismiss this finding; the claimed gap does not exist"
}

Verdict Definitions

Verdict	Meaning	When to Use
overturned	Finding is factually incorrect	Source code directly contradicts the claim
weakened	Finding is partially correct but overstated	Some evidence supports it, but severity/scope is wrong
confirmed	Finding is accurate	Source code supports all claims

Challenge Patterns

Pattern 1: Type Declaration Check

Claim: "Type X is not declared"
Challenge: Read the type file → check if X exists in type union/enum
Counter: "Line N shows X IS declared in the type definition"

Pattern 2: Design Reference Verification

Claim: "Design requires N items, implementation has M"
Challenge: Read design doc → verify the claimed requirement
Counter: "Design doc actually specifies K items, not N"

Pattern 3: Usage Verification

Claim: "Code uses type X but X is not defined"
Challenge: Check both usage site AND definition site
Counter: "X is defined at line N in file Y"

Pattern 4: Scope Confusion

Claim: "Missing 7 edge types (total should be 28)"
Challenge: Check what the "28" actually refers to
Counter: "The 28 refers to language types, not edge types; edge types are 21"

Output Format

The challenge produces a markdown report:

## Challenge Report: <finding_id>

**Verdict**: <overturned|weakened|confirmed>
**Confidence**: <0-100>%
**Adjusted Severity**: <none|high|medium|low>

### Original Finding
<finding summary>

### Counter-Evidence
- <evidence point 1>
- <evidence point 2>

### Supporting Evidence
- <evidence point 1> (if any)

### Reasoning
<detailed explanation>

### Recommendation
<action recommendation>

Error Handling

Scenario	Resolution
Referenced file not found	Report file missing; verdict = weakened (potentially stale)
Line number out of range	Search for the claimed content; adjust line reference
Design doc not found	Skip design verification; note in report
Ambiguous evidence	Present both sides; lower confidence score
Multiple findings batch	Process each independently; produce per-finding verdicts

Usage Examples

Single Finding Challenge

Skill(skill="insight-challenge", args='{"id":"HIGH-01","title":"...","file":"src/types.ts","line":58,...}')

Batch Challenge

spawn_agent({ task_name: "insight_challenge", message: "Execute skill insight-challenge, args: findings.json" })

Inline Challenge

Challenge this finding:
Claim: Function X is not exported
File: src/utils.ts:45
Evidence: grep shows no export keyword

Related Skills

• team-adversarial-swarm: Multi-agent adversarial analysis
• team-quality-assurance: QA pipeline with issue discovery
• codify-to-knowhow: Capturing verified knowledge