Loading...
Loading...
Found 12 Skills
Use when testing plans or decisions for blind spots, need adversarial review before launch, validating strategy against worst-case scenarios, building consensus through structured debate, identifying attack vectors or vulnerabilities, user mentions "play devil's advocate", "what could go wrong", "challenge our assumptions", "stress test this", "red team", or when groupthink or confirmation bias may be hiding risks.
Systematic implementation using APEX methodology (Analyze-Plan-Execute-eXamine) with parallel agents, self-validation, and optional adversarial review. Use when implementing features, fixing bugs, or making code changes that benefit from structured workflow.
Turn a one-line objective into a step-by-step construction plan for multi-session, multi-agent engineering projects. Each step has a self-contained context brief so a fresh agent can execute it cold. Includes adversarial review gate, dependency graph, parallel step detection, anti-pattern catalog, and plan mutation protocol. TRIGGER when: user requests a plan, blueprint, or roadmap for a complex multi-PR task, or describes work that needs multiple sessions. DO NOT TRIGGER when: task is completable in a single PR or fewer than 3 tool calls, or user says "just do it".
Multi-agent adversarial verification with convergence loop. Two independent review agents must both pass before output ships.
Subjects every non-trivial decision to a fresh-context adversarial review before it stands. Use when correctness matters more than speed, when working in unfamiliar code, when stakes are high (production, security-sensitive logic, irreversible operations), or any time a confident output would be cheaper to verify now than to debug later.
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)
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).
Transform technical jargon into clear explanations using before/after comparisons, metaphors, and practical context
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.
Run adversarial review on a PM artifact via the pm-critic sub-agent. Dispatches natively on Claude Code with the pm-skills plugin (invokes @agent-pm-critic); on non-Claude clients (Codex CLI, Cursor, Windsurf, Copilot, Gemini CLI) reads subagents/pm-critic.md and executes the system prompt inline. Returns findings graded P0/P1/P2/P3 with concrete fix suggestions per finding, plus a layered Status Summary section and machine-readable Status YAML block per master plan D26.
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.