| 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
- Saboteur -- What breaks in production? Race conditions, edge cases, resource exhaustion, cascading failures.
- New Hire -- What's unmaintainable? Unclear naming, missing docs, implicit assumptions, magic numbers.
- 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
- Read the code completely before commenting
- Run each persona independently -- do not let one persona's findings bias another
- Collect findings, check for cross-persona overlap, apply severity promotion
- 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
