agentleFS
Sign inStart free
creedantscreedants/pstack-t3/skills/interrogate/SKILL.md

interrogate

Skill17 starsChanged 17 days agoMITView on GitHub

Use for \"interrogate\", \"adversarial review\", \"multi-model review\", \"challenge this\", \"stress test this code\", \"find blind spots\", or \"tear this apart\". Adversaries try to break a change or design, and only findings proven by a run survive.

We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent

2 rules. 0 are common, 1 is distinctive, and 1 is very specific to this project.

  • 0

    Common

    Most of the 66 edited versions we read keep these.

  • 1

    Distinctive

    This author's own choices. Worth a look.

  • 1

    Very specific

    Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.

  • Common
  • Distinctive
  • Very specific
  1. Very specific:

    Read the pstack-t3 runtime before spawning workers, choosing models, scheduling, or isolating work.

    line 8
  2. Distinctive:

    Verify each finding per arena Phase F by rerunning its command.

    line 28

“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 66 edited versions of this file we could read. “Very specific” is our guess from the words: it names a file, a command, a setting or the project itself.

Keep what fits and drop the rest. Your version, ready for your agents.
Files
SKILL.md

Interrogate

Read the pstack-t3 runtime before spawning workers, choosing models, scheduling, or isolating work. It maps those steps onto T3's orchestrator tools.

Adversaries try to break a change or a design. A finding survives only when a run proves it. Report the findings. Do not apply fixes.

The runtime's Modes section sets the mode lines of every brief this skill writes and how its spawns run in light mode.

Frame

The scope is what the user names. Otherwise it is the branch diff from its merge base with the base branch, through the working tree. State the intent with the in-your-own-words skill, from the user's message, the commits, and the PR description. Ask the user when the intent is unclear.

Fan out

Run Phase A steps 3 and 4 and Phase B of the arena skill, with four changes. Read the interrogate reviewers role in place of arena runners. When the scope includes uncommitted changes, pass each adversary a patch of them and require it to apply that patch in its own worktree before probing. A new worktree copies no uncommitted edits, per the runtime's Isolation section. Spawn each adversary with delegate_task, mode: "async", role: "general", and the seat's target (omitted for inherit). In place of the arena task and rationale, give each adversary the scope, the intent, and this brief:

Break this change. Prove each finding with a run against the real code, such as a failing test, a repro script, or command output that shows the wrong behavior. For a design or plan, run a prototype or probe the current tree. Keep repros in your own worktree. Report each finding with a title, the exact command, the output it printed, and the output the intent requires. Leave out anything you did not run. That covers style, naming, structure, and risks that need a future change to matter. No findings is a valid result.

Collect each adversary's result per the runtime's Delegation step 5.

Verify

Verify each finding per arena Phase F by rerunning its command. Keep a finding when the output shows the failure and the failure breaks the intent. Drop the rest. Merge findings that share a root cause.

Skip arena Phases C, D, and E. Adversaries find different failures, so the verdict keeps every verified finding, not one adversary's list.

Output

  • Intent: the restatement.
  • Findings: for each verified finding, the command, its output, how it breaks the intent, and the adversaries that found it. Say "no verified findings" when none survive.
  • Dropped: for each adversary, the count of dropped findings and why.

Download now (ZIP)

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
What did you use it for? e.g. Reviewing pull requests in a Rails app

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.

Check your setup, free