「adversarial review」の検索結果

End-to-end substantive-integrity forensic sweep of a research paper (especially autoresearch / AI-Scientist-style output). Orchestrates the whole pipeline: ingest (arxiv-id | pdf | dir → working dir + pdftotext for L0) → /evidence-ledger (artifact manifest + observability level L0/L1/L2 + span-anchored claims.json) → fan out the integrity auditor skills (consistency, citation, baseline, experiment, presentation, proof-derivation, eval-design — each reads the ledger, emits span-anchored findings) + the zero-verdict-weight AIS writing-style track → advisory memos (/adversarial-case-builder + /novelty-duplication-advisory, no verdict weight) → deterministic tools/adjudicate_findings.py (--ledger REQUIRED) → reviewer-ready Integrity Forensics Report. Cross-model (fresh codex per dimension) and reviewer≠adjudicator: the model proposes findings, the deterministic adjudicator decides the verdict. Observability-aware, detect-only, never an opaque AI-text classifier (a separate zero-weight AIS section lists AI writing-style impressions, never moving the verdict). Triggers: "anti-autoresearch", "integrity audit this paper", "forensic review", "audit a submission", "审一篇投稿的诚信".

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-context adversarial review for deliverables before shipping. Use when producing blog posts, technical recommendations, analysis briefs, code, or any artifact where accuracy matters more than speed. Triggers on "challenge this", "review before shipping", "adversarial pass", "stress test this".

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。

Prepare independent review of a complete Guardrails change before pushing or updating a PR, using the repository adversarial-review procedure.

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。

Multi-model agent orchestration using specialized agents for planning, coding, research, math/science, visual analysis, and adversarial review. Use when tasks are complex enough to benefit from different models' strengths, when you want adversarial review to catch blind spots, or when coordinating multi-step workflows across agent roles. Triggers on complex projects, multi-step tasks, architecture decisions, or when explicitly requested.

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。

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

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 spec-compliance PR review — cross-references diffs against approved specs, verifies runtime claims against source, detects competing PRs, audits scope/convention compliance. Use before merging.

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。

Launches and configures the standalone presubmit CLI, an API-driven adversarial peer-review pipeline with 30-plus stages, including Red Team finders, Blue Team defence, verification cascade, legal pass, and copyedit, producing one consolidated report on disk. Verifies installation and API key, chooses the output location and smoke, standard, or custom mode, launches the run, and reports the result path. Use when the user asks to run presubmit, wants a deep unattended pre-submission audit, or needs a math or replication-code audit. Everyday self-audits go to paper-review-lite, and external refereeing to journal-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。

Drafts a referee report for a journal editor. Produces a recommendation, claim-and-design summary, three to six decision-driving concerns, additional concerns, and a revision plan through five parallel adversarial finders, Breaker, Butcher, Shredder, Void, Situator, a Blue Team error filter, Chief Reviewer synthesis, Tone Guard legal pass, and optional confidential editor note. Use when the user has been asked to referee a manuscript. Self-audits go to paper-review-lite or presubmit, and author responses go to referee-response.

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。

Draft a referee report on someone else's manuscript for a journal editor, using five adversarial finders, a Blue Team error filter, a Chief Reviewer synthesis, and a Tone Guard legal pass. Use when the user has been asked to referee a manuscript; self-audits go to paper-review-lite or presubmit, author responses to referee-response.

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。

Senior engineer conducting thorough, constructive code reviews. Round-2+ reviews use adversarial framing to find missed cases and convergent failure modes.

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。

ALIGN-video for Claude Code with independent Codex adversarial review. Create or revise a video through agent-authored code, rendering, editing and fresh-context audiovisual review, without image, video or music generation models. Use for reference-led animation, procedural films, motion design, explainers, construction replays, and continuing an existing coded-video project. Carries the work from reference study and animatic through a finished, reproducible film; supports explicitly requested self-review when appropriate.

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。

Post-implementation self-review. Use AFTER finishing ANY code implementation or change — before declaring it done, committing, or opening a PR — to critique your own work: re-read the diff adversarially, confirm unit tests cover every branch/edge, kill duplication, follow clean-code/SOLID and the repo's own docs & invariants, decide if something should become documentation, update/prune memory, and strip outdated comments. Trigger it whenever you've just written or modified code and are about to wrap up, even if the user didn't explicitly ask for a 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。

Use when writing, reviewing, or architecting Rust code — systems programming, async services, CLI tooling, web backends, or any work in `.rs` files. Triggers on editing `.rs` or `Cargo.toml` files, or mentions of "Rust", "Tokio", "Axum", "cargo", "borrow checker", "lifetime", "trait object", "async Rust", "crate", "rustc", or explicit requests to "build this in Rust" / "rewrite X in Rust". For adversarial security review of Rust code see security-reviewer.

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。

Scientific research engine for hypothesis testing, literature gap analysis, experimental validation, and data-driven discovery. Enforces adversarial review (Reviewer 2), 32 quality gates, tree search over hypotheses, confounder harness for quantitative claims, and serendipity detection. TRIGGER when: user asks to analyze scientific data, test hypotheses, validate findings, search for research gaps, design experiments, or investigate results. DO NOT TRIGGER when: pure code review, documentation writing, devops tasks, general conversation, or non-scientific data transformation.

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。

Scientific research engine v6.0 NEXUS — adversarial review (Reviewer 2), 32 quality gates, tree search, serendipity tracking, confounder harness, cross-session learning. Use for ANY scientific analysis, hypothesis testing, data validation, literature review, or task where correctness > speed.

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。

Multi-pass structural code review with adversarial personas. Input: branch diff (default), PR #123, commit, --pending. Use for 'review this PR/diff'. NOT for behavioral verification (mk:evaluate).

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 attacker mindset — trust boundary, attack surface, business logic, and defense evaluation

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。

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

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。

Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships. Use when output must clear two independent adversarial reviewers before it ships.

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 for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.

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。

Full adversarial quality loop — implement, self-attack, parallel verification, quality gates, final validation. 全品質循環：實現、自攻、並行驗證、質量關卡、最終確認. Use when: implement task with quality, run adversarial review, verify code quality, run quality gates, complete workflow task

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。

敵対的分析手法を統合したレビューの entry skill。認知バイアス対策の3手法 （Pre-mortem / War Game / Logic Torturing）と、宣言・主張と実態の乖離を突く claim-vs-actual 検出3パターン（Self-Contradiction / Refactor-Claim Audit / Cross-File Leakage）へルーティングし、通常のレビューでは見えない設計の盲点・ 防御の穴・論理の弱点・宣言と実装のズレを可視化する。

Adversarial triage of open review findings on a PR. Every finding (Codex, Claude bot, Gemini) is a hostile hypothesis to REFUTE — fix only what is proven real, reachable, in the PR's scope, and above the round's severity bar. The bar rises every review round. Everything else is declined or filed as an issue. Use for 'fix the PR findings', '/fix', '/fix 123', or before any fix commit in a review loop.

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。

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

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。