# Adversarial Review

> Use when reviewing the survey, a contribution, or a paper draft as a severe but fair reviewer — claim audit, methodology critique, and venue-reviewer simulation before submission.

- Skill: `vincenzoimp/adversarial-review` (Agent Skill, multi-file: 3 files)
- Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add vincenzoimp/adversarial-review`
- Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/vincenzoimp/adversarial-review/raw
- Safety review: pending
- Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex
- Category: Security
- License: MIT
- Author: VincenzoImp (https://skillmd.com/u/vincenzoimp)
- Updated: 2026-09-17
- Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/vincenzoimp/adversarial-review

---


# Adversarial Review

Find the objections that would block acceptance before external reviewers
do. Review; never fix. Findings go to a report beside the artifact; the
artifact itself is never edited by this skill.

## Read First

- the artifact under review: `survey/survey.tex` + PDF, or a contribution
  README + report, or a manuscript + `framing.md` + `venue.md`
- `references/review-lanes.md`, `references/claim-audit.md`

## Procedure

1. Identify the target and the standard it must meet:
   - survey → coverage vs `sota/index.md`, grouping logic, fairness, and
     the quality of the gaps section
   - contribution → badge-checklist truthfulness, methodology (the
     develop-contribution methodology standard), claim–evidence match
   - paper → venue fit and reviewer simulation per `venue.md`, novelty,
     soundness, clarity
2. Read claim-first: contributions/claims, then the evidence offered.
3. Run the claim audit on every acceptance-critical claim per
   `references/claim-audit.md`: verify each against the cited synthesis,
   contribution output, or PDF.
4. Review through every lane in `references/review-lanes.md`; keep lane
   findings separate until the final synthesis.
5. Write the report to `reviews/<YYYY-MM-DD>-<scope>.md` beside the
   artifact (`survey/reviews/`, `contributions/<slug>/reviews/`,
   `papers/<slug>/reviews/` — create the folder on demand) with: executive
   summary and recommendation; strengths with evidence; weaknesses grouped
   by severity; the claim-audit table; questions the authors must answer;
   a prioritized revision roadmap.

## Criticism Standard

Every major criticism carries: exact claim or location, why it matters,
evidence, what would fix or weaken it, severity (fatal / major / moderate /
minor), and confidence. No performative harshness; no objection without
evidence; polish never excuses methodological weakness.

## Done When

- The report exists with all sections, every fatal/major finding is
  evidence-backed, and no lane finding was dropped during synthesis — if a
  finding is wrong, the report says why