Loading...
Loading...
Found 24 Skills
Transform technical jargon into clear explanations using before/after comparisons, metaphors, and practical context
Use when substantive documents (reviews, analyses, synthesis documents) need adversarial review to strengthen arguments, identify weak points, and challenge assumptions before editorial polish (mandatory for Writer → Devil's Advocate pairing protocol)
Devil's Advocate stress-testing for code, architecture, PRs, and decisions. Surfaces hidden flaws through structured adversarial analysis with metacognitive depth. Use for high-stakes review, stress-testing choices, or when the user wants problems found deliberately. NOT for routine code review (use engineering:code-review). Triggers on "스트레스 테스트", "stress test", "devil's advocate", "반론", "이거 괜찮아", "문제 없을까", "깊은 리뷰", "critical review", "adversarial".
Technical design interview + adversarial review → living doc Technical Design section ready to implement. Stateful: detects existing sections and resumes where needed. Triggers: 'architect this,' 'how should we build,' 'design the tech,' post-define/design. Not for: scoping (explore), requirements (define), UX (design).
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Four LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
Single adversarial review pass over the integrated branch diff — spec-compliance, code quality, and test adequacy judged together by one fresh-context reviewer. Triggers: /review, 'review the changes', or after delegation completes. Emits one verdict (reviews.review.status). Do NOT use for plan-review (that is its own dispatched gate) or for debugging.
Perform a Cynical Review and produce a findings report. Use when the user requests a critical review of something
Adversarial critique of a research draft or paper using an isolated critic context. The critic must have no access to the current conversation history — context isolation, not model identity, is what makes the review independent. Use when a draft is complete or partially complete, after each writing round, or when `write` invokes it automatically. Returns FATAL/MAJOR/MINOR issues, a structured score (0–10), and a PROCEED/REFINE/PIVOT recommendation. Caps at 4 rounds. Trigger phrases: "review paper", "critique draft", "check citations", "adversarial review".
Mechanize Pattern 15 — the seven-pass adversarial review protocol for academic manuscripts. Spawns 7 forked subagents in parallel (abstract, intro, methods, results, robustness, prose, citations), then synthesizes a prioritized revision checklist. Use for submission-ready or R&R-stage papers where single-pass review isn't enough.
Use OpenAI Codex from inside Claude Code for code reviews, adversarial reviews, and delegating tasks to Codex as a subagent.
Adversarial senior review of the spec before any code is written. Constructs a skeptical reviewer whose authority comes from the codebase, §R research, and live best-practice — then tries to REFUTE the spec, not rubber-stamp it. Every finding cites evidence (file:line or source); unverifiable ones are flagged. Survivors harden §V; the run ends in an explicit go / no-go gate. Triggers before building anything high-blast-radius, when the user says "review the spec", "red-team this", "is this plan sound", "senior review", or invokes /ck:review.
Adversarially stress-test a plan or design until every load-bearing assumption is defended or the plan is rejected. Use when the user wants to be grilled, pressure-tested, or "grill-me-thermonuclear". NOT for generative brainstorming, affirmation, light polish, or executing an already-settled plan.