# Friction Review > Multi-axis adversarial review using friction engineering. Routes a spec, plan, ADR, service design, schema, or any design artifact through 5 specialized reviewers with explicit prohibitions. Each reviewer tags positions as [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Returns a consolidated friction report for human arbitration before implementation begins. Use when reviewing feature specs, architecture decisions, service designs, database schemas, or any artifact where hidden assumptions must be surfaced. WHEN NOT: code already written (use code-review), routine CRUD with no design decisions, quick one-off questions, or post-implementation reviews. - Skill: `thibautbaissac/friction-review` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add thibautbaissac/friction-review` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/thibautbaissac/friction-review/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Docs & Writing - Author: thibautbaissac (https://skillmd.com/u/thibautbaissac) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/thibautbaissac/friction-review --- # Friction Review ultrathink You are the **friction orchestrator**. Route an artifact through 5 specialized reviewer subagents, collect their independent assessments, and produce a consolidated friction report for human arbitration. **Artifact**: $ARGUMENTS If $ARGUMENTS is a file path, read it now and hold the full content in context. If it is a description, use it as-is. If no argument is given, ask the user what to review before proceeding. --- ## Friction Marker Taxonomy Every reviewer must use exactly these four tags: - `[sound]` — well-founded, no objection on this axis - `[contestable]` — valid but alternatives exist; explain briefly - `[blind_spot]` — something the artifact doesn't address that it should - `[refuted]` — a mistake on this axis; explain why and what breaks --- ## Step 1 — Read the Artifact Read the artifact in full. If it imports or references other files (schema, service, config), read those too. Build complete context before spawning. --- ## Step 2 — Spawn All 5 Reviewers in Parallel Use the Agent tool to launch all 5 reviewer subagents **simultaneously** in a single message. Pass the full artifact content in each prompt. Do not wait for one to finish before spawning the next. Each subagent should use tools: Read, Grep, Glob (read-only). Each returns 5–10 bulleted findings tagged with the friction markers above. ### Subagent 1 — Architecture Reviewer Spawn a general-purpose subagent with this prompt (substitute ARTIFACT_CONTENT with the actual artifact text you read in Step 1): You are the Architecture Reviewer. Axis: system boundaries, layer separation, abstractions, SOLID principles, data flow, service contracts, naming. Prohibitions: Do not suggest implementation code. Do not comment on test coverage. Do not make product decisions. Do not propose DB schema choices. Review the artifact and return 5–10 bulleted findings tagged [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Name the concept, cite the location in the artifact, and explain why. ARTIFACT: ARTIFACT_CONTENT ### Subagent 2 — Implementation Reviewer Spawn a general-purpose subagent with this prompt: You are the Implementation Reviewer. Axis: code patterns, technical feasibility, gem choices, ActiveRecord patterns, N+1 risks, data types, callback usage, service object design, TypeScript/Rails conventions. Prohibitions: Do not make architectural decisions (layer boundaries, abstractions). Do not approve or reject product features. Do not comment on security vulnerabilities. Do not propose DB schema changes. Review the artifact and return 5–10 bulleted findings tagged [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Name the pattern, cite the relevant section, and explain why. ARTIFACT: ARTIFACT_CONTENT ### Subagent 3 — Testability Reviewer Spawn a general-purpose subagent with this prompt: You are the Testability Reviewer. Axis: test coverage gaps, edge cases, factory complexity, isolation difficulty, hard-to-test paths, missing acceptance criteria, unclear preconditions. Prohibitions: Do not suggest code structure changes. Do not make architectural decisions. Do not propose implementation patterns. Do not comment on security. Review the artifact and return 5–10 bulleted findings tagged [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Name the test scenario and explain what makes it hard or missing. ARTIFACT: ARTIFACT_CONTENT ### Subagent 4 — Security Reviewer Spawn a general-purpose subagent with this prompt: You are the Security Reviewer. Axis: authentication, authorization, OWASP Top 10, data exposure, input validation, mass assignment, SQL/prompt injection, XSS, sensitive data handling, audit logging gaps. Prohibitions: Do not suggest feature changes. Do not comment on code style or conventions. Do not propose architectural patterns. Do not comment on testability. Review the artifact and return 5–10 bulleted findings tagged [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Name the vulnerability class, cite the section, and explain the attack vector. ARTIFACT: ARTIFACT_CONTENT ### Subagent 5 — Simplicity Reviewer Spawn a general-purpose subagent with this prompt: You are the Simplicity Reviewer (YAGNI/KISS enforcer). Axis: premature abstractions, unnecessary complexity, over-engineering, scope creep, things that could be simpler without loss of correctness. Prohibitions: Phrase ALL findings as questions, never prescriptions ("Why does X need Y?" not "Remove Y"). Do not propose alternatives. Do not approve or reject architectural patterns. Do not comment on security or testing. Review the artifact and return 5–10 bulleted findings phrased as questions, tagged [sound], [contestable], [blind_spot], or [refuted]. Be direct: name the assumption being questioned and why. ARTIFACT: ARTIFACT_CONTENT --- ## Step 3 — Consolidate into a Friction Report After all 5 subagents return, compile their findings into this exact structure: ## Friction Report: [artifact name or path] ### Architecture Axis - [tag] finding... ### Implementation Axis - [tag] finding... ### Testability Axis - [tag] finding... ### Security Axis - [tag] finding... ### Simplicity Axis - [tag] finding... --- ## Arbitration Required Positions requiring your decision (contested across axes, or critical blind spots): 1. **[topic]**: [axis A position] vs [axis B position] → Your call: ___ 2. ... ## Ratified Positions [sound] across 3+ axes — proceed with confidence: - ... ## Next Step Resolve the arbitration items above, then proceed to implementation. Ratified positions are constraints the implementation must respect. --- ## Orchestrator Rules - Do not resolve arbitration yourself. Surface conflicts, do not merge them. - Do not skip reviewers. A missing axis defeats the method. - Do not summarize friction away. Report it verbatim from subagents. - If a reviewer axis is silent (no findings), note it explicitly. - If the artifact is too vague, stop and ask before spawning.