Loading...
Loading...
Found 23 Skills
Use when substantive documents (reviews, analyses, synthesis documents) need adversarial review to strengthen arguments, identify weak points, and challenge assumptions before editorial polish (mandatory for Writer → Devil's Advocate pairing protocol)
Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships.
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review (use engineering:code-review). Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
Technical design interview + adversarial review → living doc Technical Design section ready to implement. Stateful: detects existing sections and resumes where needed. Triggers: 'architect this,' 'how should we build,' 'design the tech,' post-define/design. Not for: scoping (explore), requirements (define), UX (design).
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Four LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something
Single adversarial review pass over the integrated branch diff — spec-compliance, code quality, and test adequacy judged together by one fresh-context reviewer. Triggers: /review, 'review the changes', or after delegation completes. Emits one verdict (reviews.review.status). Do NOT use for plan-review (that is its own dispatched gate) or for debugging.
Adversarial critique of a research draft or paper using an isolated critic context. The critic must have no access to the current conversation history — context isolation, not model identity, is what makes the review independent. Use when a draft is complete or partially complete, after each writing round, or when `write` invokes it automatically. Returns FATAL/MAJOR/MINOR issues, a structured score (0–10), and a PROCEED/REFINE/PIVOT recommendation. Caps at 4 rounds. Trigger phrases: "review paper", "critique draft", "check citations", "adversarial review".
Mechanize Pattern 15 — the seven-pass adversarial review protocol for academic manuscripts. Spawns 7 forked subagents in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations), then synthesizes a prioritized revision checklist. Use for submission-ready or R&R-stage papers where single-pass review isn't enough.
Use OpenAI Codex from inside Claude Code for code reviews, adversarial reviews, and delegating tasks to Codex as a subagent.
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.