adversarial-review
Skill1 starsChanged 34 days agoApache-2.0View on GitHub
Use when Codex should ask Claude CLI for an adversarial challenge review that pressure-tests implementation direction, design choices, assumptions, tradeoffs, and failure modes. Trigger on requests such as ask Claude for adversarial review, challenge this design, pressure-test with Claude, or get a hostile/critical Claude pass.
104 other projects use a version of this.
Adopted by
Most recently taken up by
- revisit-studies/studytheir own version, first seen Nov 9, 2026
- ozt88/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- selamy-labs/agent-skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- kellen-miller/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- leinardi/adversarial-review-looptheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
- artberri/skillstheir own version, first seen Nov 8, 2026
Used with
Projects with it also use rethink, root-cause-analysis and 10 more.
Other files people use alongside this one.
Files found in the same public projects as a version of this one, more often than they turn up anywhere else. Each project counts once, large collections count for less, and this file's own repository is left out.
fabioespindulaSkillrethink
Reframe a plan, idea, or decision before the user commits to it. Use when the user asks to rethink, step back, pressure-test, gut-check, decide, right-size, simplify, think bigger about, or evaluate a concrete plan or decision in product, strategy, technical architecture, career, life, company direction, or personal priorities. This skill improves decision quality before action: clarify the real question, challenge assumptions, compare alternatives, calibrate ambition, classify the operating mode, surface risks, and recommend a next move. Do not use for broad future exploration without a concrete decision; that belongs to a think-big or research-style skill.
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillroot-cause-analysis
Use when a Regional Retail Manager asks I'm seeing unusual inventory movement at our Northwest stores. Can you help me understand what's happening?
Also in 3 projects that use this
anasahmed07Skillbetter-auth-best-practices
Skill for integrating Better Auth - the comprehensive TypeScript authentication framework.
Also in 4 projects that use this
DockerSkillfix-issue
Fix a single GitHub issue end-to-end: triage, research, write the fix, review, and create a PR. Use when asked to fix an issue: "fix issue 1234", "resolve #500", "create a PR for issue 200".
Also in 3 projects that use this
MicrosoftSkillpull-request
Write concise, focused pull request descriptions for Wassette — at most three sentences on the what and why, with an explicit note on any breaking public-API change and how users adapt. Use when opening or editing a Wassette pull request.
Also in 3 projects that use this
juriwiensSkillcodex-review
Run code review via Codex CLI
Also in 3 projects that use this
- +2 more from microsoft
Other versions104 projects use a version of this.
Word for word · 0
None found.
Edited · 0
None found.
Wrote their own version · 104
- PrefectHQ/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
- jlowin/fastmcp★ 28ksame name
- mengxi-ream/read-frog★ 10ksame name
- epicenter-md/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- EpicenterHQ/epicenter★ 4.8ksame name
- basicmachines-co/basic-memory★ 4.5ksame name
- DanMcInerney/architect-loop★ 626same name
- deadlock-mod-manager/deadlock-mod-manager★ 584same name
- boraoztunc/skills★ 454same name
- syahiidkamil/Software-Engineer-AI-Agent-Atlas★ 404same name
94 more not listed
How matches are found. Word for word: the exact same text. Edited: shares passages with this file (“99% same” means 99% of its five-word phrases also appear here; 10% or more counts). Their own version: similar meaning, or, weakest, the same name. We can’t tell which project had it first. Projects are counted among the 200 most-starred candidates, and mentions are links to the repository we found, up to 50 per site, so both counts are a floor.
The file
Show its rules and text
We split this skill into the rules it gives an agent
18 rules. 0 are common, 12 are distinctive, and 6 are very specific to this project.
0
Common
Most of the 93 edited versions we read keep these.
12
Distinctive
This author's own choices. Worth a look.
6
Very specific
Tied to their project's names, files or tools. Probably skip.
- Common
- Distinctive
- Very specific
- Distinctive: line 8
Use Claude CLI for a review-only challenge pass.
- Distinctive: line 12
Do not run automatic executable validation or print-mode smoke tests.
- Very specific: line 14
If the user explicitly requests executable validation, setup remains available as an explicit diagnostic command:
- Distinctive: line 26
Do not execute project code or validation commands unless the user explicitly and directly requests that execution.
- Distinctive: line 27
Read-only repository inspection commands required to obtain the requested scope are allowed, including git diff, git status, git show, git …
- Distinctive: line 28
When the scope is current uncommitted work, include staged, unstaged, and untracked files.
- Very specific: line 29
Do not use shell commands for any other purpose, and do not run commands that modify files, the index, refs, configuration, or other …
- Distinctive: line 31
Do not retry, add reviewers, expand the scope, or switch to a deeper model automatically.
- Distinctive: line 32
If the available time or evidence is insufficient, return the supported findings and state the remaining gap.
- Distinctive: line 33
Start with the exact diff or named files in scope and inspect only directly relevant dependencies needed to support a concrete finding.
- Distinctive: line 34
Do not perform repository-wide discovery, recursively follow references, or pursue speculative context.
- Distinctive: line 46
Use Fable 5.1 only when the user explicitly requests Fable.
- Very specific: line 50
Use claude-sonnet-5-5 for the default challenge review.
- Very specific: line 51
Use claude-opus-5-5 only when the user explicitly asks for Opus or --deep.
- Distinctive: line 52
Do not add reviewers or change models after a failure unless the user directly requests another pass.
- Very specific: line 85
If using this skill from its installed plugin cache, resolve the helper relative to this SKILL.md as ../../scripts/claude-bridge.mjs.
- Very specific: line 87
Use --deep or --model claude-opus-5-5 only when the user explicitly requests Opus.
- Distinctive: line 91
Verify every claim locally before acting on it.
“Common” is measured: kept by at least 6 in 10 of the 93 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.
Files
Claude Adversarial Review
Use Claude CLI for a review-only challenge pass. This is not a normal defect sweep; it should question whether the approach should ship.
Preflight
Do not run automatic executable validation or print-mode smoke tests. Limit local verification to static file and line inspection.
If the user explicitly requests executable validation, setup remains available as an explicit diagnostic command:
node .\scripts\claude-bridge.mjs setupRuntime Isolation
The helper runs Claude Code with safe mode, no MCP configuration, slash commands disabled, Chrome disabled, and built-in tools limited to Read, Glob, Grep, and Bash. It uses dontAsk permission mode so unavailable actions fail instead of pausing for approval. Organization-managed policy may still apply.
Bounded Execution Policy
Do not execute project code or validation commands unless the user explicitly and directly requests that execution. This includes tests, builds, package managers, scripts, servers, applications, CI, deployment, release, and workflow automation. A review or investigation request alone is not permission to execute them.
Read-only repository inspection commands required to obtain the requested scope are allowed, including git diff, git status, git show, git log, git blame, and git ls-files.
When the scope is current uncommitted work, include staged, unstaged, and untracked files; enumerate them with read-only Git inspection before reviewing only those changes.
Do not use shell commands for any other purpose, and do not run commands that modify files, the index, refs, configuration, or other repository state.
Complete one bounded pass within the helper-selected timeout, including any explicit --timeout override.
Do not retry, add reviewers, expand the scope, or switch to a deeper model automatically.
If the available time or evidence is insufficient, return the supported findings and state the remaining gap.
Start with the exact diff or named files in scope and inspect only directly relevant dependencies needed to support a concrete finding.
Do not perform repository-wide discovery, recursively follow references, or pursue speculative context.
Once a finding has enough static evidence, report it; if evidence remains insufficient, state the uncertainty and remaining gap instead of continuing to investigate.
Executable validation, Opus, --deep, retries, and fixes each require explicit user intent. Do not infer that intent from risk, difficulty, a failed review, or an adversarial review request.
Normalize shorthand only after the user explicitly selects a model:
sonnetorsonnet5.5->claude-sonnet-5-5; explicitsonnet5orsonnet-5->claude-sonnet-5opusoropus5.5->claude-opus-5-5;fableorfable5.1->claude-fable-5-1- Explicit
opus5/claude-opus-5andfable5/claude-fable-5remain pinned to version 5 opus4.8oropus 4.8->claude-opus-4-8
Use Fable 5.1 only when the user explicitly requests Fable.
Model Selection
- Use
claude-sonnet-5-5for the default challenge review. - Use
claude-opus-5-5only when the user explicitly asks for Opus or--deep. - Do not add reviewers or change models after a failure unless the user directly requests another pass.
Adversarial Prompt
You are an adversarial software reviewer.
Scope: <same exact scope the user gave>
Do not edit files.
Do not execute project code or validation commands unless the user explicitly and directly requests that execution. This includes tests, builds, package managers, scripts, servers, applications, CI, deployment, release, and workflow automation. A review or investigation request alone is not permission to execute them.
Read-only repository inspection commands required to obtain the requested scope are allowed, including `git diff`, `git status`, `git show`, `git log`, `git blame`, and `git ls-files`.
Do not use shell commands for any other purpose, and do not run commands that modify files, the index, refs, configuration, or other repository state.
Complete one bounded pass within the helper-selected timeout, including any explicit `--timeout` override.
Do not retry, add reviewers, expand the scope, or switch to a deeper model automatically.
If the available time or evidence is insufficient, return the supported findings and state the remaining gap.
Start with the exact diff or named files in scope and inspect only directly relevant dependencies needed to support a concrete finding.
Do not perform repository-wide discovery, recursively follow references, or pursue speculative context.
Once a finding has enough static evidence, report it; if evidence remains insufficient, state the uncertainty and remaining gap instead of continuing to investigate.
Limit verification to static file and line inspection.
Try to find the strongest reasons this should not ship yet.
Prioritize data loss, corruption, migrations, schema drift, concurrency, rollback, idempotency, trust boundaries, stale state, and missing tests.
Report only material findings grounded in files, line numbers, or command output.
Return in Korean unless the user requested another language.
Start with Findings ordered by severity. If no actionable finding, say so clearly.
Then give a short structural verdict: solid parts, fragile parts, and top 3 improvements.Preferred Helper
node .\scripts\claude-bridge.mjs adversarial-review --scope "all current uncommitted changes, including staged, unstaged, and untracked files"If using this skill from its installed plugin cache, resolve the helper relative to this SKILL.md as ../../scripts/claude-bridge.mjs.
Use --deep or --model claude-opus-5-5 only when the user explicitly requests Opus. The default timeout is 15m0s, 45m0s for model names containing opus, or 60m0s for model names containing fable; an explicit --timeout <duration> overrides it.
The helper stores prompt, JSON, markdown, and logs under .codex/claude-bridge/.
Verify every claim locally before acting on it. Preserve inference and uncertainty labels. Do not let Claude edit files during this review. After presenting findings, stop and ask the user which issues, if any, they want fixed before touching files.
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.

