# Sirtheoracle Forge Toolkit Adversarial Proposal > Adversarial Proposal Framework - Skill: `tomevault-io/sirtheoracle-forge-toolkit-adversarial-proposal` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 2 files) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add tomevault-io/sirtheoracle-forge-toolkit-adversarial-proposal` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/tomevault-io/sirtheoracle-forge-toolkit-adversarial-proposal/raw - Safety review: pending (external: skill-scanner PASS, skillspector CAUTION) - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: tomevault-io (https://skillmd.com/u/tomevault-io) - Updated: 2026-09-17 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/tomevault-io/sirtheoracle-forge-toolkit-adversarial-proposal --- # Adversarial Proposal Framework ## Overview This skill orchestrates an adversarial investigation workflow using Claude Code Agent Teams. Three persistent teammates investigate a problem through 4 rounds of independent analysis, synthesis, critique, and reconciliation — all automated from a single user prompt. The critical design principle is **information isolation**: Proposer A and Proposer B each have their own context window and analyze the problem with zero knowledge of each other. Only after both finish does Synthesizer C see both proposals. Then A and B push back on C from their original perspectives — but each sees only their own isolated review file, never the full synthesis or the other's ideas. C reconciles everything into a final plan. ## When to Use - Bug investigation and fix planning - Feature implementation planning - Architecture decisions - Refactoring strategies - Any technical problem where you want high confidence before implementing ## Prerequisites This skill requires **Agent Teams** (TeammateTool, SendMessage). Enable with: ```bash export CLAUDE_CODE_EXPERIMENTAL_AGENT_TEAMS=1 ``` If Agent Teams is not available on your plan, see `references/subagent-fallback.md` for an alternative using the Task tool with file-based coordination. ## Modes | Mode | Flag | Behavior | |------|------|----------| | **Default** | (none) | Fully automated. Lead orchestrates all rounds without pausing. | | **Interactive** | `--interactive` | Pauses after Round 1 (user reviews proposals) and after Round 2 (user reviews synthesis). Useful for high-stakes decisions where the user wants to steer the process. | ## Architecture ``` ROUND 0: Setup ───────────────────────────────────────────────── Lead detects problem type → selects strategy pair ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────┐ │ bug_fix: A=Forward trace, B=Backward │ │ feature: A=Minimal viable, B=Robust │ │ architecture: A=Simplicity, B=Scalability │ │ refactoring: A=Incremental, B=Clean-break │ └──────────────────────────────────────────────┘ ROUND 1: Independent Investigation (parallel) ───────────────────────────────────────────────── Proposer A (Strategy A) Proposer B (Strategy B) ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ Own context │ │ Own context │ │ │ │ │ │ Sees ONLY: │ │ Sees ONLY: │ │ - Problem stmt │ │ - Problem stmt │ │ - Source files │ │ - Source files │ │ - Strategy A │ │ - Strategy B │ │ │ │ │ │ CANNOT see B ─────┼── ✗ ────┼── CANNOT see A │ │ │ │ │ │ → proposal-A.md │ │ → proposal-B.md │ └───────────────────┘ └───────────────────┘ ◄── Quality check + Convergence check ──► ◄── [Interactive: Checkpoint 1] ──► ROUND 2: Synthesis ───────────────────────────────────────────────── Synthesizer C (teammate) ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Phase 0: Examines source files first │ │ Phase 1-2: Reads proposal-A + B │ │ Phase 3: Synthesizes proposal-C │ │ Phase 5: Writes isolated review files│ │ │ │ → proposal-C.md (lead-only) │ │ → review-for-A.md (A's eyes only) │ │ → review-for-B.md (B's eyes only) │ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ ◄── [Interactive: Checkpoint 2] ──► ROUND 3: Feedback (parallel, ISOLATED) ───────────────────────────────────────────────── Proposer A (still alive) Proposer B (still alive) ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ │ Reads ONLY: │ │ Reads ONLY: │ │ - review-for-A.md │ │ - review-for-B.md │ │ + own proposal │ │ + own proposal │ │ │ │ │ │ CANNOT see: │ │ CANNOT see: │ │ - proposal-C.md │ │ - proposal-C.md │ │ - review-for-B.md │ │ - review-for-A.md │ │ - proposal-B.md │ │ - proposal-A.md │ │ │ │ │ │ → feedback to lead │ │ → feedback to lead │ └──────────────────┘ └──────────────────┘ ROUND 4: Reconciliation ───────────────────────────────────────────────── Synthesizer C (still alive) ┌──────────────────────────────────────┐ │ Receives feedback from A and B │ │ Reconciles into final plan │ │ → final-plan.md │ └──────────────────────────────────────┘ ``` ### Why Isolation Works Each teammate has its own context window. A and B share no conversation history. The only communication channel is SendMessage through the lead — and the lead never forwards A's work to B or vice versa. | Round | Who | Can See | Cannot See | |-------|-----|---------|------------| | 1 | A | Problem + source files + Strategy A | B's proposal | | 1 | B | Problem + source files + Strategy B | A's proposal | | 2 | C | Problem + proposal-A + proposal-B + source files | — | | 3 | A | review-for-A.md + its own proposal-A.md | proposal-C.md, review-for-B.md, proposal-B.md | | 3 | B | review-for-B.md + its own proposal-B.md | proposal-C.md, review-for-A.md, proposal-A.md | | 4 | C | A's feedback + B's feedback + its own prior synthesis | — | ### Why Teammates Stay Alive All 3 teammates persist across rounds. This is essential because: - A and B retain their full investigation context from Round 1 when reviewing C's feedback in Round 3, making their responses sharper and more grounded - C retains its synthesis reasoning from Round 2 when reconciling feedback in Round 4 --- ## How to Execute When the user triggers this skill, you (the lead) orchestrate the entire workflow. Read `references/agent-teams-workflow.md` for the complete tool call sequence. Below is the high-level orchestration. ### Step 0: Gather Context and Detect Problem Type 1. Get the **problem statement** from the user 2. Identify the **relevant source files** — ask the user or search the codebase 3. **Detect problem type**: Classify as `bug_fix`, `feature`, `architecture`, or `refactoring` 4. **Select strategy pair** based on problem type (see table in Architecture diagram above) 5. Create output directory: `{project}/.dev/proposals/{issue-slug}/` 6. Save the problem statement as `problem-statement.md` 7. Read the agent role files to embed in teammate prompts: - `agents/proposer.md` - `agents/synthesizer.md` - `agents/critic.md` - `agents/reconciler.md` - `references/proposal-format.md` ### Step 1: Create Team and Tasks ``` Teammate({ operation: "spawnTeam", team_name: "adversarial-proposal" }) ``` Create 5 tasks with dependencies: | Task | Subject | Blocked By | |------|---------|-----------| | #1 | Proposal A: Independent investigation | — | | #2 | Proposal B: Independent investigation | — | | #3 | Proposal C: Synthesis + review files | #1, #2 | | #4 | Feedback from A and B | #3 | | #5 | Final plan: Reconciliation | #4 | ### Step 2: Round 1 — Spawn A and B (Parallel) Spawn both proposers **in the same turn** so they run in parallel: ``` Task({ team_name: "adversarial-proposal", name: "proposer-a", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "{problem statement + source files + proposer role + proposal format + Strategy A assignment + confidence annotations instruction + save as proposal-A.md + ISOLATION RULE + wait for instructions}", run_in_background: true }) Task({ team_name: "adversarial-proposal", name: "proposer-b", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "{same prompt but Strategy B assignment + save as proposal-B.md + ISOLATION RULE}", run_in_background: true }) ``` **CRITICAL — Isolation rule in both prompts:** > "You are one of two independent investigators. You must NOT read any other proposal files in the output directory. Do NOT look at any files named proposal-B.md, proposal-C.md, review-for-A.md, review-for-B.md, or final-plan.md. You should not look at any other documents in this directory. Only read the source files listed above." **CRITICAL — Both prompts must instruct the teammate to WAIT after completing their proposal**, not exit. They will be needed again in Round 3. Monitor inbox for "done" messages from both A and B. After both arrive: **quality check** (required sections, code refs, confidence annotations) then **convergence check**. ### Step 2.5: Convergence Check If both proposals identify the **same core finding AND propose the same approach**, the full adversarial process adds limited value. In this case: 1. Skip Rounds 2-3 2. Spawn C for a lightweight review of the converged approach (check for blind spots, missed risks) 3. C writes `final-plan.md` directly This saves significant token cost when investigators agree. ### Step 3: Round 2 — Spawn C (After A and B Complete) When both "done" messages arrive and proposals diverge: ``` Task({ team_name: "adversarial-proposal", name: "synthesizer-c", subagent_type: "general-purpose", prompt: "{instruction to examine source files FIRST (Phase 0) + then read proposal-A.md and proposal-B.md + synthesizer role + produce THREE files: proposal-C.md, review-for-A.md, review-for-B.md + isolation rules for review files (no cross-contamination) + wait for instructions}", run_in_background: true }) ``` Monitor inbox for C's "done" message. ### Step 4: Round 3 — Message A and B with Their Review Files When C's "done" arrives, message both proposers (they're still alive): ``` Teammate({ operation: "write", target_agent_id: "proposer-a", value: "Read review-for-A.md — a technical reviewer's feedback on your work. ISOLATION RULE: Read ONLY review-for-A.md. Do NOT read proposal-C.md, review-for-B.md, proposal-B.md, or any other files in the output directory. Give detailed feedback." }) Teammate({ operation: "write", target_agent_id: "proposer-b", value: "Read review-for-B.md — a technical reviewer's feedback on your work. ISOLATION RULE: Read ONLY review-for-B.md. Do NOT read proposal-C.md, review-for-A.md, proposal-A.md, or any other files in the output directory. Give detailed feedback." }) ``` Monitor inbox for feedback from both A and B. ### Step 5: Round 4 — Forward Feedback to C When both feedback messages arrive, forward them to C: ``` Teammate({ operation: "write", target_agent_id: "synthesizer-c", value: "Both investigators reviewed your feedback and responded. Reconcile their feedback and produce the final plan. Feedback from Proposer A: {A's feedback from inbox} Feedback from Proposer B: {B's feedback from inbox} {reconciler role embedded} Save the final plan as {output_dir}/final-plan.md" }) ``` Monitor inbox for C's "done" message. ### Step 6: Cleanup and Present ``` Teammate({ operation: "requestShutdown", target_agent_id: "proposer-a" }) Teammate({ operation: "requestShutdown", target_agent_id: "proposer-b" }) Teammate({ operation: "requestShutdown", target_agent_id: "synthesizer-c" }) // Wait for shutdown approvals Teammate({ operation: "cleanup" }) ``` Present `final-plan.md` to the user. Offer to: - Show the full deliberation trail (all proposals) - Explain specific decisions - Proceed to implementation - Re-run any round with different parameters --- ## Building the Teammate Prompts Each teammate prompt must be **self-contained** — embed everything inline since teammates don't inherit the lead's conversation. ### What to Embed in Every Prompt 1. **The full problem statement** — verbatim from the user 2. **Source file paths** — explicit list of every file to examine 3. **The agent role** — full content from the relevant `agents/*.md` file 4. **The proposal format** — full content from `references/proposal-format.md` (for Rounds 1-2) 5. **The output path and filename** — exact save location 6. **The isolation rule** — for A and B in Rounds 1 and 3 7. **The strategy assignment** — for A and B in Round 1 8. **The "wait" instruction** — tell teammates to wait for further messages after completing their task ### Adapting to Problem Type Tailor the investigation emphasis in the proposer prompts: | Problem Type | Emphasis | |-------------|---------| | Bug fix | Trace data flow, find where output diverges from expected, identify root cause | | Feature | Requirements analysis, integration points, risk assessment, API design | | Architecture | Tradeoffs, scalability, maintenance burden, migration path | | Refactoring | Before/after contracts, migration strategy, rollback plan | --- ## Error Handling ### Teammate Timeout / Exit Recovery | Round | Failure | Recovery | |-------|---------|----------| | Round 1 | One proposer fails | Wait for the other. Skip adversarial process — C reviews single proposal for blind spots. | | Round 1 | Both fail | Abort workflow. Report to user. | | Round 2 | Synthesizer fails | Re-spawn C. If second attempt fails, present raw proposals. | | Round 3 | One proposer fails | Proceed to Round 4 with available feedback. Note which is missing. | | Round 3 | Both fail | Proceed to Round 4 with no feedback. C produces final-plan.md from synthesis alone. | | Round 4 | Synthesizer fails | Re-spawn reconciler. If second attempt fails, present proposal-C.md. | ### Quality Gate Failures If a proposal fails the structural quality check after Round 1, message the proposer with specific feedback and request revision before proceeding. --- ## Known Tradeoffs **Reconciler bias toward own synthesis**: C naturally favors its own Proposal C when reconciling feedback from A and B. The reconciler role doc includes bias awareness guidance (steelman, perspective test, convergent signal weighting), but this is a soft mitigation — C will still tend to accept feedback that validates its approach more readily than feedback that challenges it. For high-stakes decisions, use `--interactive` mode to review the synthesis yourself before feedback rounds. --- ## Invoking the Skill ### Direct Prompt In Claude Code: ``` Use the adversarial proposal framework to investigate this bug: There is a bug with video prompt generation not including dialogue for shots where characters are talking. The relevant files are in src/services/prompt_generation/ and the system prompt is ltx2_video_prompt_system_prompt.md. ``` ### As a Claude Code Command Save as `.claude/commands/adversarial-proposal.md`: ``` Read the adversarial proposal skill at .claude/skills/adversarial-proposal/SKILL.md. Use the Agent Teams workflow described in references/agent-teams-workflow.md to investigate the following problem. Create a 3-teammate team: proposer-a and proposer-b investigate independently (FULLY ISOLATED — no sharing), synthesizer-c reviews both and produces a synthesis. Then A and B review C's feedback and respond. C reconciles into a final plan. Save all outputs to .dev/proposals/. Problem: $ARGUMENTS ``` Invoke with: ``` /adversarial-proposal There is a bug with video prompt generation... ``` For interactive mode: ``` /adversarial-proposal --interactive There is a bug with video prompt generation... ``` --- ## Output Directory ``` {project}/.dev/proposals/{issue-slug}/ ├── problem-statement.md ← Round 0 ├── proposal-A.md ← Round 1: Proposer A (Strategy A) ├── proposal-B.md ← Round 1: Proposer B (Strategy B) ├── proposal-C.md ← Round 2: Synthesizer C (lead-only, not shown to A or B) ├── review-for-A.md ← Round 2: C's review for A (no mention of B) ├── review-for-B.md ← Round 2: C's review for B (no mention of A) └── final-plan.md ← Round 4: Synthesizer C (final deliverable) ``` --- ## Reference Files | File | When to Read | Purpose | |------|-------------|---------| | `references/agent-teams-workflow.md` | Before starting orchestration | Complete tool call sequence for all rounds | | `references/proposal-format.md` | When building proposer prompts | Proposal template to embed in A/B/C prompts | | `references/subagent-fallback.md` | If Agent Teams not available | Alternative workflow using Task tool + file coordination | | `agents/proposer.md` | When building A and B prompts | Investigation role, mindset, and strategy table to embed | | `agents/synthesizer.md` | When building C's Round 2 prompt | Synthesis role with 3-file output instructions to embed | | `agents/critic.md` | When messaging A and B in Round 3 | Feedback guidance to include in message | | `agents/reconciler.md` | When messaging C in Round 4 | Reconciliation + bias awareness guidance to include in message | ## Agent Roles Summary | Agent | File | Used In | Purpose | |-------|------|---------|---------| | Proposer | `agents/proposer.md` | Round 1 (A and B) | Independent investigation with assigned strategy | | Synthesizer | `agents/synthesizer.md` | Round 2 (C) | Independent review, synthesis, isolated review files | | Critic | `agents/critic.md` | Round 3 (A and B) | Review isolated feedback, give grounded response | | Reconciler | `agents/reconciler.md` | Round 4 (C) | Bias-aware reconciliation into final plan | --- > Source: [SirTheOracle/forge-toolkit](https://github.com/SirTheOracle/forge-toolkit) — distributed by [TomeVault](https://tomevault.io).