Adversarial "perfection" review — hold a change to an *ideal* bar, not just a correct one, assuming eternal time, unlimited energy, and no ship pressure. Use when the user asks to review "for perfection", to make a defect "impossible to express", or to hunt where a defect "relocates" across review rounds. Grounds every claim in the diff, fans out adversarial verifiers via Workflow, and reports residual surfaces with a structural fix for each. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly asks for a perfection / ideal-bar review.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
See how to installReview the instructions the agent will receive before you install.
The bar is not "closed" but "the defect can no longer be expressed." Assume eternal time, unlimited energy, no deadline. "Overridable", "acceptable for scope", and "documented intent" are still holes.
Most defects are one shape in costumes. Name the shape, then hunt where it relocates — a fix that satisfies the literal ask but lets the defect resurface one seam over is not done. Track it across rounds until it has nowhere left to go.
Review with fresh context, separate from the author — a reviewer carrying the author's context rationalizes the author's intent; a fresh mind grounded only in the diff does not. Fan out grounded verifiers (one per claim) plus an adversary whose only job is to express the defect anyway, each citing the diff; then synthesize. Default to refuted-if-uncertain, loop until nothing new surfaces, and re-verify the headline finding yourself. Keep agent schemas flat and isolate the adversary so one failure can't abort the run.
Lead with credit for what's closed — don't move goalposts on done work — then the
residual surfaces, ranked, each with its structural fix. Frame each finding as the
invariant it violates, not a lone exploit: a single proof-of-concept trains a one-line
patch and the defect just relocates — give the property, and if you must show an example,
give a few from different angles and call it one costume of many. Separate "the product is
fine" from "the claim isn't yet true". Post to the PR only when asked (--post).
No reviews yet. Tell others what you thought.
No login needed. Share how it worked for you, ask a question, or note where it did not run.
No comments yet. Be the first to write one.
Modern, interactive alternative to `/do` — clarify intent up front, then take a task end-to-end with a serial AI review gauntlet (lens debate (lowy ⇄ hickey) → codex debate → simplify → code-police, each editing the branch in turn) → CI → evidence. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly types `/be` or `$be`; never auto-select from a natural-language request.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run /be's review gauntlet SERIALLY — /lens-debate (lowy ⇄ hickey), then /codex-debate, then /simplify, then code-police, each editing and committing on the live branch in turn. Use from /be §4, or when the user asks to "run the review gauntlet". Requires Claude Code's Skill tool.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Reference for the `odu` runner — how to invoke a full pipeline, a single recipe, or a platform-pinned node, and how to attach to a live run, from a project whose CI odu runs. Trigger when the user asks to "run CI", "run the pipeline", "re-run a check", to run named lanes or recipes (e.g. "run fmt and nix", "just the e2e lane", bare selectors like `fmt`/`nix`/`e2e`), or names a recipe by `<recipe>@<platform>`. This skill — not a repo's local `just ci` / `just <recipe>` — is how an odu-run request is served.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Review code for quality, simplicity, and common mistakes before declaring work complete.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Run an automated codex⇄Claude debate to consensus — no round cap, no deadlock exit. Two explicit subcommands. `review` (also the bare/back-compat default) — codex (reviewer) critiques the current diff and a Claude subagent (author) fixes/disputes, looping until they agree. `answer` — Claude and codex each answer a freeform prompt in parallel, then cross-check until they agree, and a unified answer is returned. Use when the user types `/codex-debate`, asks to "have codex review this", "run the codex debate", "review this PR with codex", "argue this with codex until you agree", or passes a question to "have Claude and codex debate/answer until they agree".
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.
Do a task end-to-end — implement, PR, CI loop, ship. ONLY invoke when the user explicitly types `/do` or `$do`; never auto-select from a natural-language request, even one that sounds like an end-to-end task.
The English summary is being prepared. Showing the original description.