Adversarial Review

Source and local adaptations: UPSTREAM.md.

Spawn reviewers on the opposite model to challenge work. Reviewers attack from distinct lenses grounded in brain principles. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict — do NOT make changes.

In Codex sessions this usually means invoking Claude via claude -p; in Claude sessions it means invoking Codex via codex exec.

Hard constraint: Reviewers MUST run via the opposite model's CLI (codex exec or claude -p). Do NOT use subagents, the Agent tool, or any internal delegation mechanism as reviewers — those run on your own model, which defeats the purpose.

Step 1 — Load Principles

Read references/reviewer-lenses.md. The three lenses (Skeptic, Architect, Minimalist) and their mapped principles govern reviewer judgments. If a brain/principles.md file exists, also read it and follow any [[wikilink]] references for additional principles.

Step 2 — Determine Scope and Intent

Identify what to review from context (recent diffs, referenced plans, user message).

Determine the intent — what the author is trying to achieve. This is critical: reviewers challenge whether the work achieves the intent well, not whether the intent is correct. State the intent explicitly before proceeding.

Assess change size:

Size	Threshold	Reviewers
Small	< 50 lines, 1–2 files	1 (Skeptic)
Medium	50–200 lines, 3–5 files	2 (Skeptic + Architect)
Large	200+ lines or 5+ files	3 (Skeptic + Architect + Minimalist)

Read references/reviewer-lenses.md for lens definitions.

Step 3 — Detect Model and Spawn Reviewers

Create a temp directory for reviewer output:

REVIEW_DIR=$(mktemp -d /tmp/adversarial-review.XXXXXX)

Determine which model you are, then spawn reviewers on the opposite:

If you are Claude → spawn Codex reviewers via codex exec:

codex exec --skip-git-repo-check -o "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" "prompt" 2>/dev/null

Use --profile edit only if the reviewer needs to run tests. Default to read-only. Run with run_in_background: true, monitor via TaskOutput with block: true, timeout: 600000.

If you are Codex → spawn Claude reviewers via claude CLI:

claude -p "prompt" > "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" 2>/dev/null

Run with run_in_background: true.

Name each output file after the lens: skeptic.md, architect.md, minimalist.md.

Reviewer prompt template

Each reviewer gets a single prompt containing:

1. The stated intent (from Step 2)
2. Their assigned lens (full text from references/reviewer-lenses.md)
3. The principles relevant to their lens (file contents, not summaries)
4. The code or diff to review
5. Instructions: "You are an adversarial reviewer. Your job is to find real problems, not validate the work. Be specific — cite files, lines, and concrete failure scenarios. Rate each finding: high (blocks ship), medium (should fix), low (worth noting). Write findings as a numbered markdown list to your output file."

Spawn all reviewers in parallel.

Step 4 — Verify and Synthesize Verdict

Before reading reviewer output, log which CLI was used and confirm the output files exist:

echo "reviewer_cli=codex|claude"
ls "$REVIEW_DIR"/*.md

If any output file is missing or empty, note the failure in the verdict — do not silently skip a reviewer.

Read each reviewer's output file from $REVIEW_DIR/. Deduplicate overlapping findings. Produce a single verdict:

## Intent
<what the author is trying to achieve>

## Verdict: PASS | CONTESTED | REJECT
<one-line summary>

## Findings
<numbered list, ordered by severity (high → medium → low)>

For each finding:
- **[severity]** Description with file:line references
- Lens: which reviewer raised it
- Principle: which brain principle it maps to
- Recommendation: concrete action, not vague advice

## What Went Well
<1–3 things the reviewers found no issue with — acknowledge good work>

Verdict logic:

• PASS — no high-severity findings
• CONTESTED — high-severity findings but reviewers disagree on them
• REJECT — high-severity findings with reviewer consensus

Step 5 — Render Judgment

After synthesizing the reviewers, apply your own judgment. Using the stated intent and brain principles as your frame, state which findings you would accept and which you would reject — and why. Reviewers are adversarial by design; not every finding warrants action. Call out false positives, overreach, and findings that mistake style for substance.

Append to the verdict:

## Lead Judgment
<for each finding: accept or reject with a one-line rationale>