「adversarial review」の検索結果

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.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarial code review using the opposite model. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Claude spawns Codex, Codex spawns Claude) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial review".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarial code review using the opposite model's CLI. Spawns 1–3 reviewers on the opposing model (Codex sessions typically spawn Claude; Claude sessions spawn Codex) to challenge work from distinct critical lenses. Triggers: "adversarial review".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Qualitative quality review of game design documents — answers "is this design good, and does it follow best practices?" — across all three GDD axes: systems, flows, and content types. Fans out adversarial lenses (completeness, clarity, pillar alignment, systems-math, fantasy-delivery, feasibility, scope) plus domain lenses that check it against the game-design rules, each prompted to find problems rather than validate; produces a severity-graded verdict and a two-bucket report (apply-ready fixes vs research), handed to /unikit-gd-apply or /unikit-gd-explore in one move. Scope is inferred: a named system, flow, or content type reviews that document; "all" runs a cross-document review. Use when the user wants a critique, quality judgment, or rules check of the design, e.g. "review the combat GDD", "review the onboarding flow". This is the subjective quality pass — for a mechanical consistency check (numbers, terms, IDs, references matching the registry) use /unikit-gd-verify.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Hostile self-review of recently written AI workflow code that then applies fixes (agents, tools, chat context, summarization, tokens, attachments). Use after generating AI systems code, or when asked to self-review and harden it. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate attacks (adversarial-challenge). Prefer: adversarial-challenge → decide → this skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Code review through the lens of real engineers' documented philosophies (Torvalds, Thompson, Carmack, Kent Beck, Jobs, Cagan). Complements abstract-role adversarial review with named, sourced perspectives. Use when automated review findings feel generic, when a PR has architectural or UX impact, or when the author wants pre-submit hardening beyond standard checks.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Comprehensive manuscript review with three modes: single-pass (default), --adversarial critic-fixer loop, and --peer [journal] simulated peer-review pipeline (editor + 2 dispositioned referees + editorial decision, calibrated to a target journal). R&R continuation via --peer --r2/--r3; hostile-editor stress test via --peer --stress; reviewer-disposition variance reporting via --peer --variance N. Auto-invokes /review-r + /audit-reproducibility on referenced scripts unless --no-cross-artifact.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Produces an adversarial attack on a legal argument that survives reply. Runs the opposing-counsel discipline twice: an unrestrained first pass, then the same instrument turned on that pass to cut every point that collapses under challenge - attacks on conceded facts, wrong-forum objections, speculation about documents and motives, gotchas with innocent explanations, overclaims, self-refuting assertions, and padding. The deliverable is one standalone attack containing only what can be defended, capped at five heads, not a discussion of the discarded draft. Use to attack, stress-test, red-team or rebut a submission, brief, motion, witness statement, letter or structured legal reasoning. Triggers on "attack this but only with points that hold", "no cheap shots", "what survives reply", "which points can I actually defend", "give me the version I can file", "double-pass adversarial review". Also use when an earlier adversarial review came back overlong or scattershot. Formal British English.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Run the adversarial verification loop — implement, then hand the change to a fresh checker that did not write it, fix what it finds, and re-dispatch until APPROVE. Use before claiming any behavioural change is done, and on requests like "review loop", "adversarial review", "independent review", "get this verified", "is this actually done", "maker checker", "second pair of eyes on this change". Not for prose, docs or typo edits.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Critically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to "evaluate findings", "assess review comments", "triage review feedback", "evaluate review output", or "filter false positives".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarially review something just built — presume it is broken and find where. Use after implementing a feature, finishing a build, or before shipping, or whenever ATLAS or Boss wants a hostile second opinion on a diff, a running app, or a whole codebase. Spawns clean-context reviewers with opposing lenses (correctness, security, empty-world) and reproduces every finding by running the target before believing it. Distinct from /code-review, which statically reads a diff and never runs the app.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

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. Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Structured 3-phase peer review of a diff or PR — intent, issues by severity, then pointed merge-readiness questions and a verdict. Use for general code review. Not for AI workflow self-fix-and-edit (ai-systems-review) or no-edit devil's-advocate threat models (adversarial-challenge). Phase 3 asks questions only; it is not the adversarial-challenge skill.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Devil's-advocate attack on AI workflow designs — threat model, assumption challenges, code critiques, and hypothetical redesigns with no file edits. Use for "attack this design", devil's advocate, or hostile challenge on agents/tools/summarization/tokens. Not for PR peer review (code-review) or self-review that applies fixes (ai-systems-review). Prefer: this skill → decide → ai-systems-review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review code changes adversarially using parallel review layers (Blind Hunter, Edge Case Hunter, Acceptance Auditor) with structured triage into actionable categories. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review agent-written changes before merge, after substantial edits, or when re-reviewing a repair. Use the adversarial protocol for high-risk changes or an explicitly requested deep review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Cross-model second opinion from Google Gemini — a different AI reviewing the same changes, with deep Google ecosystem knowledge. Three modes: review (pass/fail gate for Google Ads campaigns, SEO metadata, or code), challenge (adversarial stress-test that tries to break your changes), and consult (open Q&A with Gemini on Google Ads strategy, SEO best practices, or implementation questions). Use when the user says "gemini review", "ask gemini", "gemini challenge", "second opinion from gemini", "consult gemini", "stress test with gemini", "what would gemini say", "cross-model review", or "get another opinion". Voice aliases: "gem", "gemini check". Especially useful for Google Ads changes, SEO metadata updates, campaign structure decisions, keyword strategies, and bid/budget changes — Gemini has native Google ecosystem knowledge that complements Claude's analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

SUPERSEDED by /claudex-loop (formerly /crucible; its docs-aware mode covers this variant) — prefer that skill unless you explicitly want this one. Two-act plan hardening with living documentation. ACT 1 (you ↔ Claude) — Claude interviews you relentlessly about a plan, one question at a time, challenging it against your project's existing domain model and glossary (CONTEXT.md), sharpening fuzzy terms, stress-testing with concrete scenarios, cross-referencing code, and updating CONTEXT.md + ADRs inline as decisions crystallise. ACT 2 (Claude ↔ Codex) — Claude writes the locked plan to PLAN.md and OpenAI Codex adversarially reviews it in a read-only sandbox (VERDICT:APPROVED/REVISE), Claude revises and re-submits to the SAME Codex session until APPROVED or a MAX_ROUNDS cap, then you sign off before any code. Use when the user says "/grill-with-docs-codex", "grill me against the docs then have codex review", "stress-test this against our domain model then get a second model on it", or is about to build something high-stakes in a project with established terminology/ADRs and wants alignment, documentation, AND a cross-model sanity check. Builds on Matt Pocock's grill-with-docs (MIT). NOT for reviewing already-written code (use /codex:review) and NOT for trivial changes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Fresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when explaining or planning around ACM CCS peer review, the two-cycle HotCRP workflow, decision categories including minor revision, the rebuttal window, the adversarial reviewer pool, ethics and disclosure scrutiny, meta-review dynamics, and ACM proceedings outcomes.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Adversarial senior-engineer review for agent-generated plans, designs, and architectures. Treats the current output as junior work, constructs a senior reviewer whose domain expertise comes from live codebase research plus web research of current best practices, diagnoses altitude failures (too vague or too granular), then rewrites the plan into a scoped, state-of-the-art version. Use when the user says "junior to senior", "senior review", "review this like a staff engineer", when a plan feels hand-wavy or lost in details, or before committing to any agent-written plan.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。