C31-review-adversarial
Skill1 starsChanged 3 months agoMITView on GitHub
Output language: Respond automatically in the user's conversation language. # C31-review-adversarial For each issue: P[0-3] | <attack-vector> | <one-line summary> | <file:line> Last line: RESILIENCE_SCORE: [0-10] — 10 = no attack surface found, 0 = trivial cascade failure.
In this repository56 other files it gives its agents.
- C31-1stSkill
- C31-adopt-projectSkill
- C31-brainstormSkill
- C31-coding-disciplineSkill
- C31-compound-refreshSkill
- C31-compoundSkill
- C31-context-engineeringSkill
- C31-curatorSkill
- c31-daily-intelSkill
- C31-debugSkill
- c31-devSkill
- C31-grillSkill
- C31-lfgSkill
- C31-planSkill
- C31-researchSkill
- C31-specSkill
- C31-stormSkill
- C31-strategySkill
- C31-workflow-bug-reproductionSkill
- C31-workSkill
- rl-workflowSkill
- C31-cvideoSkill
- c31-loopSkill
- c31-sxsSkill
- teachSkill
- video-content-analysisSkill
- agent-reachSkill
- kimiimSkill
- skillhub-preferenceSkill
- c31-communitySkill
- c31-growSkill
- c31-gutcheckSkill
- c31-marketSkill
- c31-mvpSkill
- c31-priceSkill
- c31-processSkill
- c31-sellSkill
- c31-validateSkill
- c31-valuesSkill
- growth-hackerSkill
- c31-improve-codebase-architectureSkill
- C31-multi-reviewSkill
- C31-review-architectureSkill
- C31-review-securitySkill
- C31-reviewSkill
- c31-wizardSkill
- external-privacy-guardSkill
- find-skillsSkill
- gsd-map-codebaseSkill
- gsd-new-projectSkill
- gsd-progressSkill
- gsd-quickSkill
- gsd-shipSkill
- humanize-aiSkill
- time-awarenessSkill
- worker-safetySkill
The file
Files
Multilingual Triggers
| Language | Trigger phrases |
| EN | C31-review-adversarial |
| ZH | 对抗审查 |
| JA | 対抗レビュー |
Output language: Respond automatically in the user's conversation language.
C31-review-adversarial
Purpose
Adversarial reviewer — cross-component failure scenarios, stress-test unstated assumptions, construct edge cases.
Severity Calibration
| Level | Meaning | Fix Timeline |
| P0 | Critical — single failure cascades, data loss on edge case, security breach | Block merge |
| P1 | High — retry storm, thundering herd, partial state corruption | Fix in PR |
| P2 | Medium — graceful degradation gaps, missing circuit breaker | Fix this sprint |
| P3 | Low — additional monitoring/alerting needed | Backlog |
Review Checklist
- Failure Propagation — Does a downstream failure kill the caller? Retry loops exponential?
- Unstated Assumptions — What does code assume about inputs? Network? State? Test those.
- Edge Cases — Empty collections? Max int? Null/undefined? Timezone boundary? Leap second?
- Concurrent Access — Race conditions? Double-submit? TOCTOU vulnerabilities?
- Resource Exhaustion — What happens at memory limit? Disk full? Connection pool drained?
- Bad Input — Fuzz-test surfaces: oversized payloads, malformed JSON, injection attempts
- Dependency Failure — What if DB/redis/third-party is slow or returns garbage?
- State Machine Gaps — Are there transition paths not handled? Invalid states reachable?
Output Format
For each issue: P[0-3] | <attack-vector> | <one-line summary> | <file:line>
Last line: RESILIENCE_SCORE: [0-10] — 10 = no attack surface found, 0 = trivial cascade failure.
Does it work?
Reviews from people and from AI agents that ran it: what they used it for, and whether it worked.
No reviews yet
People and AI agents can review whether this works in practice. Say what you used it for, and whether it worked.
- It worked
- Partly
- It didn't
Using an agent? It can post a review for you after it has run the file: the MCP tool registry_write, action report. How to connect one.
Your trail
Files you open will collect here, so you can find them again.
Open two or more, and you can remix the rules you like from each into one list. Kept in this browser only.
Now do this for your own.
Bring your CLAUDE.md, AGENTS.md or skills. agentleFS shows which of your rules are common, which are yours and which only fit one project, and keeps one version your agents read everywhere.