Results for “adversarial-review”

Adversarial reviewer that stress-tests claims and conclusions. Use when the user asks to talk to KAY/O, requests an adversarial review, or needs claims validated before publication.

Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands, prioritizing correctness over speed for high-stakes or unfamiliar code.

Adversarial code review using parallel review layers and structured triage. Use when the user says "run code review" or "review this code"

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something

Turns a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects, with self-contained context briefs, adversarial review, and dependency graphs.

Uses two independent review agents to verify output quality, requiring both to pass before shipping.

Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships.

Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships.

Performs security-focused differential review of code changes (PRs, commits, diffs), adapting analysis depth to codebase size and generating comprehensive markdown reports.

Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships.

Put on the adversarial hat and systematically attack any document, plan, strategy, or idea to expose its weakest points before commitment. Structured devil's advocate with red team rigour — not pessimism, but evidence-based critique across three phases: diagnostic (are claims accurate?), creative (is the problem artificially constrained?), challenge (are solutions robust?). Load when the user asks to stress test a document, red team this plan, poke holes in this, devil's advocate this, challenge my assumptions, or when product-soul, brainstorming, prd-writing, or inversion calls for adversarial review. Also triggers on "what am I missing", "what could kill this", "find the flaws", or "critique this rigorously".

Skeptical pushback on the research dossier before it feeds the outline. Asks whether claims are cited, whether surprising findings are actually surprising, whether we missed the strongest competitor angle. One revision pass on FAIL (BLOG_AGENT_RESEARCH_REVISION_BUDGET, default 1).

Runs a multi-agent adversarial verification loop where two independent reviewers must both pass before output ships, with a fix cycle for convergence.

Decide whether an article deserves publication through hard checks and skeptical comparison.

Simulates a complete international journal peer review process with 5 dynamically configured reviewers, producing structured editorial decisions and revision roadmaps.

Pressure-test any business idea with a five-angle adversarial panel (Critic, Champion, Analyst, Investigator, Customer) that returns a single GO/RESHAPE/KILL verdict with the cheapest test to de-risk it.

Multi-perspective academic paper review with dynamic reviewer personas. Simulates 5 independent reviewers (EIC + 3 peer reviewers + Devil's Advocate) with field-specific expertise. Supports full review, re-review (verification), quick assessment, methodology focus, Socratic guided, and calibration modes. Triggers on: review paper, peer review, manuscript review, referee report, review my paper, critique paper, simulate review, editorial review, calibrate reviewer, reviewer calibration, measure reviewer accuracy.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Walk every branching path and boundary condition in content, report only unhandled edge cases. Orthogonal to adversarial review - method-driven not attitude-driven. Use when you need exhaustive edge-case analysis of code, specs, or diffs.

Independent DeepSeek-backed adversarial proof-audit step for existing theorem, lemma, proposition, or proof artifacts in Markdown, LaTeX, or proof logs. Use when asked to check, audit, verify, red-team, or adversarially review a proof; when a completed proof task needs a correctness pass; or when a broader proof workflow dispatches an independent reviewer to find gaps, hidden assumptions, counterexamples, or unjustified steps.

Skeptical pushback on visual placement — both density and quality. Reads the annotated outline plus the visuals manifest and asks (a) whether the article hits the density target from editorial-principles-visuals.md, (b) whether each [VISUAL:...] earns its place, (c) whether sections without one would benefit. One revision pass on FAIL (BLOG_AGENT_VISUALS_REVISION_BUDGET, default 1).

Runs independent AI CLI reviewers over phase plans and merges their feedback into a REVIEWS.md file.

Simulates a NeurIPS/SC/ICSE-style peer review with five reviewer personas (HPC, ML, Stats, Reproducibility, Devil's Advocate) that verify every claim against actual result data before submission.

`analysis-agent`/`task-agent`/`review-agent`: primary-Skill-selected for races, locks, optimistic conflicts, or worker overlap; never task owner; skip without concurrency impact.

通用跨模型审查：Review LLM 对任意研究制品进行独立评审，输出结构化评分、wiki 实体映射与改进建议

Skeptical pushback on the outline before drafting starts. Asks whether the outline is MECE, BLUF, problem-agitate-solution; whether it covers the topic better than the SERP top-5; whether sections duplicate; whether each section earns its visual. One revision pass on FAIL (BLOG_AGENT_OUTLINE_REVISION_BUDGET, default 1).

Analyze contracts to identify risks, unfavorable terms, and negotiation opportunities before signing.