Adversarial Review
Forces an adversarial mindset on a plan, PRD, design, or code change — break it rather than bless it. Loaded at the /dr-plan checkpoint and /dr-qa.
Overview
The default failure mode of review is confirmation: a reader who wants the artifact to be correct finds reasons it is. This skill inverts the stance — the reviewer's job is to construct the strongest case that the artifact is wrong, incomplete, or unsafe, and only then weigh that case against its defence.
This is the general adversarial lens. Two sibling skills sharpen specific axes: edge-case-hunter (boundary and failure inputs the artifact does not handle) and structure-review (organisation, completeness, internal contradiction). Load whichever the task calls for; this skill covers the mindset and the whole-artifact attack.
The Core Rule
"No findings" is an alarm, not an all-clear. If an adversarial pass produces zero findings, that is evidence the pass was shallow — not that the artifact is flawless. Before recording "no material findings", the reviewer must have done at least one of:
- named the artifact's single most load-bearing assumption and tried to falsify it;
- traced one concrete failure scenario end-to-end and shown it cannot occur;
- identified what the artifact does not claim to handle, and confirmed that scope cut is deliberate and stated.
When It Loads
/dr-planTransition Checkpoint — attack the plan before implementation starts./dr-qa— attack the produced change before it is blessed.- Any critical decision where a confirmation-biased read is the cheapest way to ship a defect.