菜单
Adversarial second-pass review that tries to break code, designs, plans, or ADRs. Use when stakes are high and a normal review already ran.
默认使用会先检查来源的 Prompt；你也可以切换为直接命令，或下载本地副本。
决定是否安装前，请先阅读 SKILL.md，以及 SkillsMP 当前展示的配套文件。
用 Codex 或 Claude 帮你安装 复制这段 Prompt，粘贴到 Codex、Claude 或其他助手里，让它检查 Skill 页面并帮你完成安装。
直接命令不会经过审查 Prompt；运行前请先检查来源。
npx skills add https://github.com/laurigates/claude-plugins --skill adversarial-review命令会保持在同一行。复制前请横向滚动并检查完整内容。
想先保存到本地？可下载 SkillsMP 当前能够提供的文件。
正在显示 SKILL.md
基于 SOC 职业分类
| name | adversarial-review |
| description | Adversarial second-pass review that tries to break code, designs, plans, or ADRs. Use when stakes are high and a normal review already ran. |
| args | [target] [focus directive] |
| argument-hint | path|PR|file|plan description; optional 'focus on X' |
| allowed-tools | Agent, Read, Glob, Grep, Bash(git diff *), Bash(git log *), Bash(gh pr view *), TodoWrite |
| model | opus |
| created | "2026-06-21T00:00:00.000Z" |
| modified | "2026-07-28T00:00:00.000Z" |
| compatibility | claude-code |
| reviewed | "2026-06-21T00:00:00.000Z" |
A normal review asks "is this right?" and confirms intent. Adversarial review asks "how could this be wrong?" and hunts for the fault the first pass rationalised away. It is a second pass for residual risk on high-stakes work — not a replacement for the first pass, and not for low-stakes or reversible changes where it only manufactures busywork.
This is a thin posture, not a new checklist. It layers four moves —
isolation, inverted objective, a triage gate, and a bounded loop — on top of
the domain checklists that already live in code-review, security-audit,
verify-before-plan, and cold-read-gate. It dispatches an isolated
reviewer with the matching lens and then triages what comes back, because
an agent told to find faults will invent them.
| Use this skill when... | Use something else instead when... |
|---|---|
| Stakes are high and a normal review already passed, but residual risk remains | First-pass review of a diff/PR → code-quality-plugin:code-review |
| Red-teaming an architecture decision, ADR, or migration plan before commit | Verifying plan facts (counts, paths, build state) → agent-patterns-plugin:verify-before-plan |
| Stress-testing a design's failure modes and invariants | Pure security audit → agents-plugin security-audit / /security-review |
Probing whether outward text survives a reader → wrap cold-read-gate | Legibility of outward text on its own → agent-patterns-plugin:cold-read-gate |
| The change is hard to reverse and a missed fault is expensive | The change is low-stakes, reversible, or throwaway — skip; it wastes tokens |
| Move | What it means | Borrowed from |
|---|---|---|
| Isolation | The reviewer gets the artifact with no author context — bias can't leak in | cold-read-gate |
| Inverted objective | Brief says "enumerate failure modes," never "confirm it works" |
| this skill |
| Triage gate | Separate genuine faults from manufactured objections before acting | cold-read-gate Step 3 |
| Bounded loop | One revise round; a third means a structural problem the gate can't fix | cold-read-gate Step 4 |
Model choice is the inverse of cold-read-gate. That skill uses haiku on purpose — the weak reader is the measurement instrument for legibility. Adversarial review wants opus: finding subtle faults is a reasoning task, not a low-context-reader simulation.
Parse $ARGUMENTS:
#123 or URL), a file, or a free-text description of a plan/decision.
If absent, default to the current diff (git diff + staged) and say so.focus on the failure path, ignore style) — biases the lens. It
steers, never overrides: it must not cancel a live user boundary
stated earlier in the session (the auto-mode.md conversation-boundary
hazard).Execute this adversarial review:
Confirm both hold before spending tokens:
code-review) — adversarial review is a
second pass, and leading with it skips cheap, high-yield findings.If either fails, say so and redirect rather than proceeding.
State in one line what is under review, then select the lens. The lens supplies the domain attack vocabulary — delegate to the owning skill's checklist rather than restating it:
| Target type | Lens / attack vocabulary | Delegate the checklist to |
|---|---|---|
| Code, diff, PR | Logic errors, edge cases, race conditions, error-swallowing | code-quality-plugin:code-review, code-review-checklist |
| Security surface | Injection, authz gaps, secret exposure, trust boundaries | agents-plugin security-audit, /security-review |
| Architecture / ADR | Coupling, failure domains, blast radius, reversibility | blueprint adr-validate, adr-relationships |
| Plan / wave premise | Premise truth, stale facts, name≠behaviour | agent-patterns-plugin:verify-before-plan |
| Outward text / docs | Legibility under zero context | agent-patterns-plugin:cold-read-gate |
| Research claims | Unverified or single-sourced claims | .claude/skills/deep-research |
One Agent per lens. Keep model: opus. Dispatch lenses in parallel only
when there are several and the session is not on a [1m] model (the
parallel-subagent rate-limit caveat in skill-fork-context.md). Template:
subagent_type: general-purpose
model: opus
prompt: |
You are an adversarial reviewer. Your ONLY objective is to find ways this
is WRONG, fragile, or unsafe — do not confirm that it works, do not
praise it. Assume a fault exists and locate it.
Read ONLY the target (no scope beyond it):
<target path / diff / pasted plan>
Attack along this lens: <lens from Step 2, with its checklist>.
<focus directive, if any>
Produce:
1. FAULTS — each as: SEVERITY=critical|high|medium EVIDENCE=<file:line or
quoted claim> FAILURE=<the concrete way it breaks>.
2. ASSUMPTIONS-ATTACKED — load-bearing assumptions you tried to falsify,
and whether each held.
3. VERDICT: exactly one of `sound` | `flawed`.
Cite evidence for every fault. Your final message is the deliverable.
The reviewer was told to find faults, so some "faults" are noise. Triage before acting (this is the load-bearing step — skipping it is how adversarial review sends you down the wrong path):
| Genuine fault — act on it | Manufactured objection — drop it |
|---|---|
| A concrete input/state that breaks the code, with evidence | A defense against an input the contract makes impossible |
| A failure mode with real blast radius | A hypothetical with no realistic trigger |
| A violated invariant or unhandled error path | Style/preference dressed up as a fault |
| A premise that is actually false | Re-litigating a trade-off already decided with rationale |
| A missing edge case the spec implies | Scope the change didn't touch and isn't responsible for |
Emit a prioritised report: target, verdict, surviving genuine faults
(severity-ordered, with evidence and a suggested fix), and explicitly note
the objections you dropped in triage and why. Apply or hand off the genuine
fixes. Re-dispatch a fresh reviewer only if the verdict was flawed;
do not loop more than twice — a third round means a structural problem the
review can't resolve.
| Mistake | Correct approach |
|---|---|
| Running it as a first pass | It's a second pass — a normal review runs first (Step 1) |
| Using it on low-stakes / reversible work | Skip it; the precondition gate exists to say no |
| Acting on every objection the reviewer raises | Triage first (Step 4); the inverted objective guarantees noise |
| Using a weak model "to be tougher" | Opus — subtle faults are a reasoning task (inverse of cold-read-gate) |
| Restating each lens's checklist inline | Delegate to the owning skill; this is a posture, not a checklist |
| Looping until the reviewer goes silent | One revise round; persistent faults = structural problem |
cold-read-gate — the isolation + triage +
bounded-loop pattern this skill generalises (legibility lens; uses haiku)verify-before-plan — adversarial review
of premises; the plan/wave lens delegates hereexecution-grounded-review — the
sibling verifier for running behaviour against acceptance criteria (this
skill attacks a design; that one grounds each criterion in execution evidence)code-quality-plugin:code-review — the first-pass review this layers on top ofagents-plugin security-audit / /security-review — the security lens.claude/rules/terminology.md — defines Adversarial review and Red-team.claude/rules/skill-fork-context.md — the [1m] parallel-dispatch caveat.claude/rules/loop-integrity.md — looping skills delegate their stop-condition judgement to an isolated reviewer like this one (Pillar 1)Install, configure and troubleshoot MCP servers. Use when adding/enabling servers, editing .mcp.json, fixing OAuth, or when a server runs stale code after an upstream fix.
FinOps snapshot — org billing, workflow stats, cache usage. Use when you want a high-level view of CI spending or workflow health before diving deeper.
GitHub Actions billing, workflow efficiency, and waste analysis at org or repo level. Use when investigating CI/CD costs, wasted runs, or optimizing triggers.