Adversarial Stress Testing
Core Question: Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions?
Methodology Sources
- Lakatos (1976) — Proofs and Refutations: counterexample-driven refinement
- Dutilh Novaes (2016) — Adversarial argumentation as dialogical practice
- Clarke BVA — Boundary Value Analysis for systematic edge testing
- Flyvbjerg (2006) — Critical case methodology: most-likely/least-likely selection
- Popper (1959) — Falsificationism: seek conditions where claims break
Strategy Routing
| Artifact Type |
Primary Strategy |
Rationale |
| claim, hypothesis |
assumption-negation |
Direct logical attack |
| gap, research-question |
lakatos-heuristics |
Counterexample refinement |
| idea, approach |
boundary-enumeration |
Parameter space testing |
| experiment-design |
critical-case-design |
Decisive test selection |
| any (synthesis) |
validity-envelope-mapping |
Comprehensive envelope |
Budget Table
| Resource |
S |
M |
L |
| Negation derivation chains |
3 |
6 |
10 |
| Counterexamples/boundary cases |
5 |
12 |
25 |
| Parameter dimensions |
3 |
6 |
10 |
| Validity envelope dimensions |
2 |
4 |
6 |
Tactics
- contradiction-derivation — Negate, derive, detect contradiction
- boundary-probing — Map parameter space, test extremes, find breakpoints
- counterexample-heuristics — Generate monsters, bar or incorporate
Context Management
- Persist derivation chains and counterexamples across rounds
- Track which negations produced genuine contradictions vs. benign outcomes
- Accumulate validity envelope boundaries incrementally
Output
Produces AdversarialStressReport containing: identified breakpoints, validity envelope, surviving refined claims, and confidence assessment.
Available Strategies
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Strategy |
When to use |
| assumption-negation |
Classic reductio ad absurdum: negate the core claim, derive logical consequences, seek contradiction or absurdity. |
| boundary-enumeration |
Systematic Boundary Value Analysis: identify parameter boundaries, test at and beyond limits, detect breakpoints. |
| critical-case-design |
Flyvbjerg critical case methodology: select most-likely and least-likely cases to maximize inferential power. |
| lakatos-heuristics |
Proofs and Refutations method: generate counterexamples, attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements. |
| stress-test-validity-envelope-mapping |
Map the complete validity envelope of a claim across all relevant dimensions, synthesizing breakpoints into a bounded region. |
Available Tactics
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| Tactic |
When to use |
| boundary-probing |
Map parameter space, generate extreme values, test at boundaries, detect breakpoints, synthesize validity envelope. |
| contradiction-derivation |
Negate a claim, derive logical consequences step by step, detect whether a genuine contradiction or absurdity emerges. |
| counterexample-heuristics |
Generate counterexamples (monsters), attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements (Lakatos method). |
Available SOPs
Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.
| SOP |
When to use |
| context-checkpoint |
Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |
| context-init |
Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |
| mitigation-proposal |
Proposes concrete mitigation strategies for identified weaknesses. Generates prevention, detection, and response measures with feasibility assessment. |
| stress-test-saturation-detection |
Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |
| verdict-synthesis |
Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |
| weakness-classification |
Classifies discovered weaknesses into severity tiers (fatal/major/minor/cosmetic) with structured justification and exploitability assessment. |
1---2name: adversarial-stress-testing3description: Campaign: Logical extreme and boundary testing via reductio ad absurdum and edge-case analysis. Core question: Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions? Methods: Lakatos 1976, Dutilh Novaes 2016, BVA, Flyvbjerg Critical Case, Popper.4---56# Adversarial Stress Testing78**Core Question:** Does this artifact collapse under logical limits and boundary conditions?910## Methodology Sources1112- Lakatos (1976) — Proofs and Refutations: counterexample-driven refinement13- Dutilh Novaes (2016) — Adversarial argumentation as dialogical practice14- Clarke BVA — Boundary Value Analysis for systematic edge testing15- Flyvbjerg (2006) — Critical case methodology: most-likely/least-likely selection16- Popper (1959) — Falsificationism: seek conditions where claims break1718## Strategy Routing1920| Artifact Type | Primary Strategy | Rationale |21|---|---|---|22| claim, hypothesis | assumption-negation | Direct logical attack |23| gap, research-question | lakatos-heuristics | Counterexample refinement |24| idea, approach | boundary-enumeration | Parameter space testing |25| experiment-design | critical-case-design | Decisive test selection |26| any (synthesis) | validity-envelope-mapping | Comprehensive envelope |2728## Budget Table2930| Resource | S | M | L |31|---|---|---|---|32| Negation derivation chains | 3 | 6 | 10 |33| Counterexamples/boundary cases | 5 | 12 | 25 |34| Parameter dimensions | 3 | 6 | 10 |35| Validity envelope dimensions | 2 | 4 | 6 |3637## Tactics3839- contradiction-derivation — Negate, derive, detect contradiction40- boundary-probing — Map parameter space, test extremes, find breakpoints41- counterexample-heuristics — Generate monsters, bar or incorporate4243## Context Management4445- Persist derivation chains and counterexamples across rounds46- Track which negations produced genuine contradictions vs. benign outcomes47- Accumulate validity envelope boundaries incrementally4849## Output5051Produces `AdversarialStressReport` containing: identified breakpoints, validity envelope, surviving refined claims, and confidence assessment.5253<!-- BEGIN available-tables (generated) -->5455## Available Strategies5657Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.5859| Strategy | When to use |60| --- | --- |61| assumption-negation | Classic reductio ad absurdum: negate the core claim, derive logical consequences, seek contradiction or absurdity. |62| boundary-enumeration | Systematic Boundary Value Analysis: identify parameter boundaries, test at and beyond limits, detect breakpoints. |63| critical-case-design | Flyvbjerg critical case methodology: select most-likely and least-likely cases to maximize inferential power. |64| lakatos-heuristics | Proofs and Refutations method: generate counterexamples, attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements. |65| stress-test-validity-envelope-mapping | Map the complete validity envelope of a claim across all relevant dimensions, synthesizing breakpoints into a bounded region. |6667## Available Tactics6869Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.7071| Tactic | When to use |72| --- | --- |73| boundary-probing | Map parameter space, generate extreme values, test at boundaries, detect breakpoints, synthesize validity envelope. |74| contradiction-derivation | Negate a claim, derive logical consequences step by step, detect whether a genuine contradiction or absurdity emerges. |75| counterexample-heuristics | Generate counterexamples (monsters), attempt monster-barring, incorporate surviving counterexamples as lemma refinements (Lakatos method). |7677## Available SOPs7879Optional, no fixed order; the final leaf is always a sop.8081| SOP | When to use |82| --- | --- |83| context-checkpoint | Append research process and results to the current Phase's context file. Covers both process and results with genuine substance. Use this skill at plan-designated checkpoint points — typically after each strategy completes or at key decision nodes within a research Phase. |84| context-init | Create a new context file for a research Phase. Called once at Phase start to initialize the file that subsequent context-checkpoint calls will append to. Use this skill whenever a new research Phase begins and a fresh context file is needed. |85| mitigation-proposal | Proposes concrete mitigation strategies for identified weaknesses. Generates prevention, detection, and response measures with feasibility assessment. |86| stress-test-saturation-detection | Determines whether validation has reached saturation — no new weaknesses or failure modes being discovered. Used by all 5 campaigns as termination signal. |87| verdict-synthesis | Synthesizes findings from a completed campaign into typed verdict reports. Produces DebateVerdict, RedTeamReport, FailureAnticipationReport, CounterfactualMap, or AdversarialStressReport depending on campaign. Also supports cross-campaign StressTestSummary. |88| weakness-classification | Classifies discovered weaknesses into severity tiers (fatal/major/minor/cosmetic) with structured justification and exploitability assessment. |8990<!-- END available-tables (generated) -->
yogsoth-ai