“adversarial”的搜索结果

Generate randomized and edge-case inputs to detect unexpected failures, bugs, and security vulnerabilities through fuzz testing. Use when creating test cases for robustness testing, generating adversarial inputs, testing error handling, finding edge cases, or security testing. Produces Python test code with fuzzing inputs for strings, numbers, and structured data focusing on edge cases, invalid inputs, and random valid inputs. Triggers when users ask to generate fuzz tests, create randomized test inputs, test edge cases, find bugs through fuzzing, or generate adversarial test cases.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Generate adversarial inputs, edge cases, and boundary test payloads for stress-testing LLM robustness

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Iteratively refine a product spec by debating with multiple LLMs (GPT, Gemini, Grok, etc.) until all models agree. Use when user wants to write or refine a specification document using adversarial development.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Multi-agent adversarial code review. Spawns three reviewer subagents (Auditor, Adversary, Pragmatist) on a single model, runs a cross-examination round, then deterministically synthesizes a single ranked report. Use this for non-trivial PRs, security-sensitive changes, refactors that touch many files, or any change where one perspective has obvious blind spots. Trigger phrases include "adverse review", "adversarial review", "multi-perspective review", "review my changes from multiple angles", "panel review". NOT suitable for trivial diffs (typos, dependency bumps, formatting).

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Force adversarial code review stance that eliminates confirmation bias — reviewer must find issues or re-analyze

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

N-round opposing-stance debates for trade-off analysis. Assigns pro/con roles to agents, runs structured debate rounds with quality scoring, and produces a moderator synthesis with confidence-rated recommendation. Generalizable to architecture, technology, security, and design decisions.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

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".

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Solve competition math problems (IMO, Putnam, USAMO, AIME) with adversarial verification that catches the errors self-verification misses. Activates when asked to 'solve this IMO problem', 'prove this olympiad inequality', 'verify this competition proof', 'find a counterexample', 'is this proof correct', or for any problem with 'IMO', 'Putnam', 'USAMO', 'olympiad', or 'competition math' in it. Uses pure reasoning (no tools) — then a fresh-context adversarial verifier attacks the proof using specific failure patterns, not generic 'check logic'. Outputs calibrated confidence — will say 'no confident solution' rather than bluff. If LaTeX is available, produces a clean PDF after verification passes.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when a plan, feature, or launch needs an explicit adversarial pass to find weak assumptions, abuse cases, or strategic blind spots before execution.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use this skill when running or interpreting VCSDD adversarial reviews. Provides calibration guidance for the Adversary agent, finding severity classification, and anti-leniency enforcement patterns.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Run a seven-agent adversarial pipeline against a resume and cover letter before submission. Produces channel-conditional verdicts anchored to the realistic applicant pool, separates materials quality from submission expected value, and ends with a contrarian pass that can overturn the verdict.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Simulate supply chain and adversarial machine learning attacks by injecting poisoned data or targeted backdoors into training and fine-tuning datasets. Use this skill when assessing the integrity controls of MLOps pipelines or evaluating the resilience of AI models against highly targeted, stealthy manipulation intended to alter model behavior on specific triggers.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Identify and simulate Data Poisoning attacks aimed at degrading or skewing an AI model's accuracy. This skill focuses on Adversarial Machine Learning concepts where attackers inject malicious or mislabelled data points into training or fine-tuning datasets (e.g., feedback loops) to bias the AI.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Top-level orchestrator for the Gaia Skill Tree evidence verification pipeline. Run this when you want to do a full evidence pass — collecting raw sources, verifying live GitHub star counts, running Phase 2B benchmark-source verification, adversarially auditing for quality/formatting issues, and checking that every URL is reachable — all in one coordinated sequence. Trigger phrases: "run the evidence pipeline", "full evidence pass", "verify evidence", "evidence verification pipeline", "run ev-pipeline", "check all evidence", "audit the data lake", "evidence quality sweep", "refresh evidence", "validate evidence sources". Also aliased as /evidence-verification-pipeline. Use the individual sub-skills (ev-collection, ev-star-verification, ev-adversarial-audit, ev-link-validation) only when you need to re-run one phase in isolation; for end-to-end work, always start here.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Orchestrate a whole-registry sweep of Gaia — fan out 13 parallel audit agents across every skill, run adversarial verification, surface Semantic Fusion candidates, propose new generic skill references, and synthesize a publish-ready HTML report under docs/meta/reports/. Use this skill for broad, systemic analysis across many skills at once: "run a meta sweep", "sweep the meta", "full meta audit", "audit the whole registry against META.md", "widespread nomenclature issues", "find all skills missing a GitHub link", "produce a meta report", "check for evidence type mismatches across the registry", "find skills that document a third-party tool with no attribution", or explicitly types /gaia-meta-sweep. This is the registry-wide macro companion to /gaia-meta-audit (a prioritized queue, single-pass) and /gaia-audit (fixes one skill). Use it when you need the full surface — 13 audit dimensions, adversarial verification, fusion proposals, and a durable findings artifact — not just a queue.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Adversarial project planning workflow. Explores the problem space, drafts tickets in batches, then runs sequential adversarial loops — a mandatory UX loop ("should we build this?"), zero or more discretionary specialist loops (security, performance) for projects with architectural implications in those domains, and a mandatory implementer loop ("could we build this?") — to find gaps before implementation. Creates well-specified, batch-tagged tickets upstream only after every applicable loop signs off.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Applies rigorous adversarial analysis to generate, critique, fix, and consolidate solutions for any problem (technical or non-technical). Use when facing complex problems requiring thorough analysis, multiple solution approaches, and validation of proposed fixes before implementation.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Adversarial implementation review based on Block's g3 dialectical autocoding research. Use when validating implementation completeness against requirements with fresh objectivity.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Use when adversarially reviewing a document that makes formal or technical claims — math derivations, physics papers, statistical analyses, benchmark reports, whitepapers. Inventories every equation and quantitative claim, verifies each AS NAMED in the text (never a paraphrase or a neighboring statement), and classifies VERIFIED / REFUTED / UNVERIFIABLE / VACUOUS. Triggers on "check this paper", "verify these claims", "is this derivation right", "review this proof", "audit this benchmark", "does the math hold up". For source-code review see code-review-and-quality; for skill/agent library audits see skill-library-review; for content quality scoring see content-ops.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Adversarial code review using attacker mindset — trust boundary, attack surface, business logic, and defense evaluation

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。

Adversarial dialectic tool inspired by GAN. Alternates between Generator (creative advocate) and Discriminator (adversarial critic). Supports forced role selection (g/d), intensity modes (hard/soft), and multi-language output. Use for stress-testing ideas, business plans, code, and spec designs.

中文简介正在准备中。当前显示原文说明。