Adversarial agents

Adversarial Agents

Configurable adversarial panel review of any artefact. Generalises the panel-of-personas pattern from Matt Pocock's grill-me to arbitrary artefact types — plans, code, design docs, prose, model outputs.

Pure conversation. No file output. No "recommended answer" — the critique IS the question; the user's pre-commit defense is the user's answer.

Triage first

Before dispatching, check the artefact is concrete enough to attack:

Signal	Action
Artefact is <~100 words, or has no concrete decisions/values/file paths/named targets	Refuse. Reply: "This artefact is too thin to attack productively — flesh it out first, then come back." Do not dispatch.
User says "review my plan" / "grill this plan" with substantive content	Proceed; panel will be plan (YAGNI / Premortem / Hidden Assumptions).
User pastes code / points at a file	Proceed; panel will be code (Saboteur / New Hire / Security Auditor).
Other concrete artefact (design doc, spec, prose, model output)	Proceed; panel auto-selected per the table below.

Adversarial-agents attacks fleshed-out artefacts. It does not flesh them out — that's brainstorming's job for plans, or the user's drafting process for everything else.

Pre-commitment gate (after triage, before dispatch)

After triage passes, ask the user for a 1-paragraph pre-commitment before dispatching the panel:

Before I dispatch the adversaries: in one paragraph, state what you think this artefact is and the strongest reason it's right. The adversaries will attack both the artefact and this defense — pre-committing prevents the skill's questions from becoming leading cues that you sycophantically agree with.

Wait for the paragraph. If the user refuses or hand-waves ("just go", "no it's obvious"), counter once:

The research on Socratic interview skills (Pocock, obra/superpowers, fullo) all build in this gate because skill-generated questions are documented sycophancy triggers without a pre-commit anchor. One paragraph — then we dispatch.

If user still refuses, dispatch anyway and note in the recap that no pre-commit was captured.

Include the pre-commit paragraph in each adversary's prompt so they can attack the defense, not just the artefact.

Panel selection

Detect artefact type from input. Apply the default panel; user can override with --panel <name> or --personas <comma-sep>.

Detected type	Default panel	Override flag
Plan / design / spec / process	YAGNI · Premortem · Hidden Assumptions	--panel plan
Code (diff, file, snippet)	Saboteur · New Hire · Security Auditor	--panel code
Product spec / PRD	Premortem · Hidden Assumptions · Security Auditor	--panel spec (uses plan + code personas)
Prose / writing	(not built-in; user must supply via --personas)	--panel prose
Model output	(not built-in; user must supply via --personas)	--panel model-output
Mixed / unclear	Ask user to pick a panel	--panel custom

Personas live in personas/<name>.md in this skill's directory. Each persona file has frontmatter (name, applies_to, severity_default) and a body prompt. Built-in personas as of v0.1.0: yagni, premortem, hidden_assumptions, saboteur, new_hire, security_auditor.

If the user supplies --personas custom_a,custom_b, treat each as a one-off inline prompt string (no registry lookup).

Dispatch the panel

Spawn N Agent sub-agents (subagent_type=general-purpose, model=haiku for cost) in a single message so they run concurrently. Each gets the same artefact text, the same pre-commit defense (if captured), the same tool guidance, and a different persona prompt.

For each persona, the dispatch prompt is:

1. The persona's body from personas/<name>.md (or the inline string for custom personas).
2. The shared adversary contract (below).
3. The artefact text.
4. The user's pre-commit defense paragraph (if captured).

Shared adversary contract (include in every persona prompt)

Each persona prompt must end with this shared block:

You MUST surface at least one critique. If you genuinely cannot find one after looking hard, return: NO FINDINGS — and here are the three places I looked hardest and why they're solid: [3 specific places]. Do not return a rubber-stamp "looks good."

Avoid these failure modes (lifted from Claude Code internal anti-rationalization guards): verification avoidance ("the artefact looks correct based on my reading" — not enough; check it), seduced by the first 80% (stopping at the obvious critiques and missing the structural ones), strawmanning (attacking a weaker version of the artefact than what's written).

Use Read/Grep/Bash to check claims against the codebase or referenced files. Use Exa/Tavily/WebSearch sparingly (max 1–2 searches per specific claim) to verify external facts. You are NOT doing research — you are attacking.

Report as a bullet list, one line per critique, max ~10 critiques. No prose preamble. Format each as: - [topic]: [one-sentence critique].

Summarise the scope (and tag overlaps)

After all personas return, scan for overlap — critiques surfaced by 2+ personas, even if framed differently. Tag those [CONVERGED] and rank them first in the walk order; convergence across distinct personas is the highest-signal indicator of a real hole.

Post a one-line scope summary to the user:

Panel returned: {persona-1} {n}, {persona-2} {m}, {persona-3} {k} — {n+m+k} critiques total, {c} converged across personas. Walking through converged first, then by adversary judgment of severity.

This gives the user budget visibility before the walk begins.

Walk one critique at a time

Walk converged critiques first (the [CONVERGED] ones from the summary), then by adversary judgment of severity. Not per-persona blocks.

Standing rule — verbatim substance: When you pose a critique as a question, the substance (the claim, the named target, the severity) must come from the adversary's bullet verbatim — don't summarise, soften, or generalise. You add the question wrapper around the critic's substance; you don't rewrite it. Research (Wynn et al. ICML 2025) shows the parent (stronger model) tends to dilute weaker-model critique through paraphrase; verbatim preserves the critic's framing and resists capability-asymmetry drift.

For each critique:

1. Post it as a sharp Socratic question, wrapping the adversary's verbatim substance. Frame it as the adversary would, e.g.:

   Saboteur: Your retry loop has no upper bound on attempts — under sustained downstream failure, this consumes the worker pool. Name the cap, or this is a production-outage primitive.

2. Wait for the user's response.

3. Dog-with-bone evaluation:

   • Concrete defense (user gives a specific reason, named consumer, named constraint) → mark resolved, move on.
   • Amendment (user revises the artefact) → mark resolved, move on.
   • Explicit "park this" (user says park / skip / move on / unresolved) → mark parked, move on.
   • Wave-off (user says "it's fine", "I think so", "probably ok", or any non-specific dismissal) → counter with the strongest version of the adversary's case, then re-ask. Do not move on.

4. Deadlock cap: if a single critique exceeds 3 counter-pushes without resolve / amend / explicit park, force a choice: "I'll park this unless you give a concrete defense or amend the artefact in the next response." Research (Khan et al. ICLR 2025; HAJailBench) shows 2–3 rounds captures most gain; 4+ is churn.

5. Only ask ONE critique at a time. Never batch.

End-of-session recap

When every critique is resolved or parked, post a final in-conversation recap:

## Adversarial-agents recap

**Panel:** {persona-1} ({n}), {persona-2} ({m}), {persona-3} ({k}) — {converged} converged.
(If any persona returned NO FINDINGS, note here: e.g. "Saboteur: NO FINDINGS — three solid spots noted.")

**Pre-commit captured:** yes | no (note "no" if user refused the gate)

**Resolved ({n}):**
- [critique topic] — [one-line how it was resolved]
- ...

**Parked ({m}):**
- [critique topic] — still open
- ...

No file written. The conversation log is the record.

If the user makes major revisions during the walk and wants the revised artefact re-attacked, they re-invoke the skill — a single invocation does a single dispatch.

Common mistakes

Mistake	Fix
Dispatching adversaries sequentially	All persona Agent calls go in one message
Providing your own recommended answer per critique	The critique IS the question; the user's pre-commit defense is the user's answer; don't add yours
Accepting "it's fine" as a resolution	That's a wave-off — counter with strongest case and re-ask
Walking per-persona blocks (all Saboteur, then all New Hire, ...)	Walk [CONVERGED] first, then by severity — never per-persona blocks
Skipping the pre-commit gate when user says "just go"	Counter once with the Pocock/obra/fullo rationale; dispatch anyway if they still refuse, but record "no pre-commit" in the recap
Paraphrasing a critique when posing the Socratic question	Verbatim substance: claim + named target + severity come from the adversary's bullet unchanged — only the question wrapper is yours
Dropping [CONVERGED] critiques to the bottom of the walk	Convergence across personas is the highest-signal indicator of a real hole — walk them first
Skipping triage and dispatching on a one-line artefact	Refuse and ask the user to flesh out first
Letting adversaries rabbit-hole on web research	Cap them at 1–2 web searches per specific claim
Asking multiple critiques in one message	One critique at a time, always
Writing the recap to a file	Pure conversation; recap is in-message only
Loading a persona file but skipping the shared contract block	Persona body + shared contract are both required in the dispatch prompt; never just the body
Picking the wrong panel for the artefact (e.g. YAGNI on a security review)	Auto-detect by artefact type, or accept user's --panel / --personas override; don't default-pick blindly