How do I install the Adversarial Coach skill?

Run npx skillmds@latest add modbender/adversarial-coach in your terminal (requires Node.js), paste this page's agent-chat prompt into Claude, Cursor, or any MCP-connected agent, or download the SKILL.md file and copy it into your agent's skills directory.

Is Adversarial Coach safe to use?

This skill has not completed SkillMD's automated safety review yet. Independent scanners report: SkillSpector: PASS, Skill Scanner: PASS. Capability flags: makes network calls, reads secrets. SkillMD never runs a skill's scripts for you; review the SKILL.md before installing.

Which AI agents work with Adversarial Coach?

This skill is tagged as working with Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex. SKILL.md is an open format, so most agents that read a skills directory can load it too.

Is Adversarial Coach free to use?

Yes. Installing skills from SkillMD is free, and the skill stays under its author's original license.

Who published Adversarial Coach?

modbender (@modbender) published this skill. Their other Agent Skills are listed on their SkillMD profile.

Adversarial Coach by modbender — Agent Skill

Name: Adversarial Coach
Rating: 4.2 (5 reviews)
Author: modbender

File contents

/coach - Adversarial Implementation Review

Usage

/coach [requirements-file]

/coach - Infer requirements from context
/coach requirements.md - Validate against specific file

Coach-Player Loop

You orchestrate this dialectical loop between implementing agent (player) and reviewer (coach):

You (player) implement features
/coach invokes adversarial review with independent evaluation of compliance to requirements
Coach returns: IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED or specific fixes
Address feedback, loop until approved

Review Process

Step 1: Identify Requirements

Check (in order):

Specified requirements file or issue/ticket mentioned
requirements.md, REQUIREMENTS.md, SPEC.md, TODO.md
Conversation context; ask user if nothing found

Step 2: Adversarial Review

Review with fresh objectivity - discard prior knowledge, don't rationalize shortcuts.

Check Category	Items
Requirements	Each item: implemented or missing with specific gap
Compilation	Compiles? Tests pass? Runs?
Common Gaps	Auth on endpoints, token refresh endpoint, HTTPS, bcrypt for passwords, error handling, input validation
Functional	Test actual flows (not just compilation), verify edge cases work
Test Coverage	Auth error cases (401/403), token expiry, invalid inputs, rate limits

Step 3: Return Verdict

If approved (>95% complete):

IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED

- [Requirement 1]: Verified
- [Requirement 2]: Verified
- Compilation: Success
- Tests: All passing

If fixes needed:

REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE:
- [Requirement]: Implemented
- [Requirement]: Missing - [specific gap]

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED:
1. [Specific fix with file/line if known]
2. [Specific fix]

Key Principles

Rigorous but fair:

Catch real gaps (security, logic, data flow), not style preferences
Functionality over aesthetics; always flag security issues (auth, crypto, validation)

Concise:

Bullets, not essays; specific issues, not vague concerns
No file contents or verbose analysis in output

Fresh context is your superpower:

Review as if you've never seen this code; validate against requirements, not intentions

Magic Signal

IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED = termination signal

Only use when: all requirements met, code compiles/runs, tests pass, no significant gaps.

If in doubt, don't approve.

Minimal Example

User: /coach SPEC.md

Claude:
REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE:
- User registration endpoint (bcrypt hashing)
- Login with JWT tokens
- Logout endpoint - not implemented
- Token refresh - missing /auth/refresh endpoint

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED:
1. Add POST /auth/logout endpoint
2. Add POST /auth/refresh for token renewal
3. Add tests for 401 on expired tokens

---

User: [fixes] /coach SPEC.md

Claude:
IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED
- All auth endpoints verified (register, login, logout, refresh)
- 18 tests passing including auth error cases

Research

Paper: Adversarial Cooperation in Code Synthesis
Implementation: g3
Key insight: Discard implementing agent's self-report; perform independent evaluation against requirements.

---name: adversarial-coachdescription: Adversarial implementation review based on Block's g3 dialectical autocoding research. Use when validating implementation completeness against requirements with fresh objectivity.--- # /coach - Adversarial Implementation Review ## Usage ``` /coach [requirements-file] ``` - `/coach` - Infer requirements from context - `/coach requirements.md` - Validate against specific file ## Coach-Player Loop You orchestrate this dialectical loop between implementing agent (player) and reviewer (coach): 1. You (player) implement features 2. `/coach` invokes adversarial review with independent evaluation of compliance to requirements 3. Coach returns: `IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED` or specific fixes 4. Address feedback, loop until approved ## Review Process ### Step 1: Identify Requirements Check (in order): - Specified requirements file or issue/ticket mentioned - `requirements.md`, `REQUIREMENTS.md`, `SPEC.md`, `TODO.md` - Conversation context; ask user if nothing found ### Step 2: Adversarial Review Review with **fresh objectivity** - discard prior knowledge, don't rationalize shortcuts. | Check Category | Items | |----------------|-------| | Requirements | Each item: implemented or missing with specific gap | | Compilation | Compiles? Tests pass? Runs? | | Common Gaps | Auth on endpoints, token refresh endpoint, HTTPS, bcrypt for passwords, error handling, input validation | | Functional | Test actual flows (not just compilation), verify edge cases work | | Test Coverage | Auth error cases (401/403), token expiry, invalid inputs, rate limits | ### Step 3: Return Verdict **If approved (>95% complete):** ``` IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED - [Requirement 1]: Verified - [Requirement 2]: Verified - Compilation: Success - Tests: All passing ``` **If fixes needed:** ``` REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE: - [Requirement]: Implemented - [Requirement]: Missing - [specific gap] IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED: 1. [Specific fix with file/line if known] 2. [Specific fix] ``` ## Key Principles **Rigorous but fair:** - Catch real gaps (security, logic, data flow), not style preferences - Functionality over aesthetics; always flag security issues (auth, crypto, validation) **Concise:** - Bullets, not essays; specific issues, not vague concerns - No file contents or verbose analysis in output **Fresh context is your superpower:** - Review as if you've never seen this code; validate against requirements, not intentions ## Magic Signal `IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED` = termination signal Only use when: all requirements met, code compiles/runs, tests pass, no significant gaps. If in doubt, don't approve. ## Minimal Example ``` User: /coach SPEC.md Claude: REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE: - User registration endpoint (bcrypt hashing) - Login with JWT tokens - Logout endpoint - not implemented - Token refresh - missing /auth/refresh endpoint IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED: 1. Add POST /auth/logout endpoint 2. Add POST /auth/refresh for token renewal 3. Add tests for 401 on expired tokens --- User: [fixes] /coach SPEC.md Claude: IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED - All auth endpoints verified (register, login, logout, refresh) - 18 tests passing including auth error cases ``` ## Research - **Paper**: [Adversarial Cooperation in Code Synthesis](https://block.xyz/documents/adversarial-cooperation-in-code-synthesis.pdf) - **Implementation**: [g3](https://github.com/dhanji/g3) - **Key insight**: Discard implementing agent's self-report; perform independent evaluation against requirements.

Frequently asked questions

Adversarial Coach