adversarial-review
Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.
Best use case
adversarial-review is best used when you need a repeatable AI agent workflow instead of a one-off prompt.
Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.
Teams using adversarial-review should expect a more consistent output, faster repeated execution, less prompt rewriting.
When to use this skill
- You want a reusable workflow that can be run more than once with consistent structure.
When not to use this skill
- You only need a quick one-off answer and do not need a reusable workflow.
- You cannot install or maintain the underlying files, dependencies, or repository context.
Installation
Claude Code / Cursor / Codex
Manual Installation
- Download SKILL.md from GitHub
- Place it in
.claude/skills/adversarial-review/SKILL.mdinside your project - Restart your AI agent — it will auto-discover the skill
How adversarial-review Compares
| Feature / Agent | adversarial-review | Standard Approach |
|---|---|---|
| Platform Support | Not specified | Limited / Varies |
| Context Awareness | High | Baseline |
| Installation Complexity | Unknown | N/A |
Frequently Asked Questions
What does this skill do?
Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.
Where can I find the source code?
You can find the source code on GitHub using the link provided at the top of the page.
Related Guides
AI Agents for Coding
Browse AI agent skills for coding, debugging, testing, refactoring, code review, and developer workflows across Claude, Cursor, and Codex.
Best AI Skills for Claude
Explore the best AI skills for Claude and Claude Code across coding, research, workflow automation, documentation, and agent operations.
Cursor vs Codex for AI Workflows
Compare Cursor and Codex for AI coding workflows, repository assistance, debugging, refactoring, and reusable developer skills.
SKILL.md Source
# Adversarial Review ## Overview Independent adversarial code review checking spec compliance. Uses binary PASS/FAIL verdicts (not subjective feedback) with required file:line evidence citations. ## When to Use - After quality gates pass in the execution loop - For final comprehensive cross-unit review - When verifying spec compliance of any implementation ## Key Differences from Collaborative Review | Aspect | Collaborative | Adversarial | |--------|--------------|-------------| | Goal | Help improve code | Verify spec compliance | | Verdict | Suggestions | Binary PASS/FAIL | | Evidence | Optional | Required (file:line) | | Reviewer | Can be reused | Must be fresh | | Context | Shared | Independent | ## Fresh Reviewer Rule On re-review after FAIL, a NEW reviewer instance spawns with no memory of the previous review. This prevents anchoring bias where a reviewer fixates on previously identified issues. ## Anti-Patterns - Reusing reviewers after FAIL - Passing previous findings to new reviewers - Providing subjective or advisory feedback - Accepting partial compliance as PASS ## Tool Use Invoke as part of: `methodologies/metaswarm/metaswarm-execution-loop` (Phase 3)
Related Skills
systematic-review
Conduct comprehensive literature searches, quality assessments, evidence synthesis, and meta-analyses
quality-assurance-review
Conduct systematic quality reviews of instructional materials using established rubrics (Quality Matters) and design standards
peer-review-simulator
Skill for simulating peer review feedback on manuscripts
dfm-review
Skill for design for manufacturing review and optimization
design-review
Skill for formal design review preparation and execution (PDR/CDR)
design-review-facilitator
Design review planning and execution skill for structured design phase gate reviews per 21 CFR 820.30
clinical-literature-reviewer
Systematic literature review skill for clinical evaluation supporting regulatory submissions
performance-review
Generate performance review documentation and facilitate evaluation processes
requesting-code-review
Use when completing tasks, implementing major features, or before merging to verify work meets requirements.
receiving-code-review
Use when receiving code review feedback, before implementing suggestions. Requires technical rigor and verification, not blind implementation.
security-review
Security vulnerability assessment identifying OWASP risks, injection vectors, authentication issues, and data exposure with severity classification.
plan-review-gate
Adversarial plan review by 3 independent reviewers (Feasibility, Completeness, Scope & Alignment) before presenting to user.