adversary

分类: 开发与编程 | 上传者: Rune-kit | 下载: 0 | 版本: v1.0（最新）
实施前红队分析。在编写代码之前挑战计划——发现边缘情况、安全漏洞、可扩展性瓶颈、错误传播风险和集成冲突。在计划时发现缺陷（比实施后便宜 10 倍）。
更新日志: Source: GitHub https://github.com/Rune-kit/rune
目录结构

当前层级: tree/master/skills/adversary/
📄 SKILL.md 13.0 KB
SKILL.md

---
name: adversary
description: Pre-implementation red-team analysis. Challenges plans before code is written — finds edge cases, security holes, scalability bottlenecks, error propagation risks, and integration conflicts. Catches flaws at plan time (10x cheaper than post-implementation).
metadata:
  author: runedev
  version: "0.1.0"
  layer: L2
  model: opus
  group: quality
  tools: "Read, Glob, Grep"
---

# adversary

## Purpose

Pre-implementation adversarial analysis. After a plan is approved but BEFORE code is written, adversary stress-tests the plan across 5 dimensions: edge cases, security, scalability, error propagation, and integration risk. It does NOT fix or redesign — it reports weaknesses so the plan can be hardened before implementation begins.

This fills the only gap in the plan-to-ship pipeline: all other quality skills (review, preflight, sentinel) operate AFTER code exists. Catching a flaw in a plan costs minutes; catching it in implementation costs hours.

<HARD-GATE>
adversary MUST NOT approve a plan without at least one specific challenge per dimension analyzed.
A report that says "plan looks solid" without concrete attack vectors is NOT a red-team analysis.
Every finding MUST reference the specific plan section, file, or assumption it challenges.
</HARD-GATE>

## Triggers

- Called by `cook` Phase 2.5 — after plan approved, before Phase 3 (TEST)
- `/rune adversary` — manual red-team analysis of any plan or design document
- Auto-trigger: when plan files are created in `.rune/` or `docs/plans/`

## Calls (outbound)

- `sentinel` (L2): deep security scan when adversary identifies auth/crypto/payment attack vectors in the plan
- `perf` (L2): scalability analysis when adversary identifies potential bottleneck patterns
- `scout` (L2): find existing code that might conflict with planned changes
- `docs-seeker` (L3): verify framework/API assumptions in the plan are correct and current
- `hallucination-guard` (L3): verify that APIs, packages, or patterns referenced in the plan actually exist

## Called By (inbound)

- `cook` (L1): Phase 2.5 — after plan approval, before TDD
- `plan` (L2): optional post-step for critical features
- `team` (L1): when decomposing large tasks, adversary validates the decomposition
- User: `/rune adversary` direct invocation

## Cross-Hub Connections

- `adversary` ← `cook` — plan produced → adversary challenges it → hardened plan feeds Phase 3
- `adversary` → `sentinel` — security attack vector identified → sentinel validates depth
- `adversary` → `perf` — scalability concern raised → perf quantifies the bottleneck
- `adversary` → `scout` — integration risk flagged → scout finds affected code
- `adversary` → `plan` — CRITICAL findings → plan revises before implementation

## Execution

### Step 0: Load Context

1. Read the plan document (from `.rune/features/<name>/plan.md`, phase file, or user-specified path)
2. Read the requirements document if it exists (`.rune/features/<name>/requirements.md` from BA)
3. Use `scout` to identify existing code files that the plan will touch or depend on
4. Identify the plan's core assumptions — what MUST be true for this plan to work?

### Step 1: Edge Case Analysis

Challenge the plan's handling of boundary conditions.

For each input/output/state transition in the plan, ask:
- **Empty/zero**: What happens with no data, zero items, empty strings, null users?
- **Overflow**: What happens at MAX — 10K items, 1MB payload, 1000 concurrent users?
- **Race conditions**: What if two operations happen simultaneously? Can state become inconsistent?
- **Partial failure**: What if step 3 of 5 fails? Is there rollback? Or orphaned state?
- **Invalid combinations**: What input combinations are technically possible but semantically nonsensical?

```
EDGE_CASE_TEMPLATE:
- Scenario: [specific edge case]
- Plan assumption: [what the plan assumes]
- Attack: [how this breaks]
- Impact: [what fails — data loss, crash, wrong result, security breach]
- Remediation: [1-sentence fix suggestion]
```

### Step 2: Security Attack Vectors

Analyze the plan for security weaknesses BEFORE any code exists.

- **Input trust boundaries**: Where does the plan accept external input? Is validation specified?
- **Authentication gaps**: Does the plan assume auth exists? Are there unprotected routes or actions?
- **Data exposure**: Could the planned API responses leak sensitive fields? Are there over-fetching risks?
- **Privilege escalation**: Can a normal user reach admin functionality through the planned flow?
- **Injection surfaces**: Does the plan involve dynamic queries, template rendering, or shell commands?
- **Dependency risk**: Does the plan introduce new dependencies? Are they well-maintained and trusted?

If any auth, crypto, or payment logic is in the plan: MUST call `rune:sentinel` for deep analysis.

```
SECURITY_TEMPLATE:
- Vector: [attack type — OWASP category if applicable]
- Entry point: [which part of the plan is vulnerable]
- Exploit scenario: [how an attacker would use this]
- Severity: CRITICAL | HIGH | MEDIUM
- Remediation: [what the plan should specify to prevent this]
```

### Step 3: Scalability Stress Test

Project the plan forward — what happens at 10x and 100x scale?

- **N+1 queries**: Does the plan describe data fetching that will create N+1 database calls?
- **Missing pagination**: Does the plan handle lists without specifying limits?
- **Synchronous bottlenecks**: Are there blocking operations in the hot path?
- **Cache invalidation**: If caching is planned, what happens when data changes? Stale reads?
- **State growth**: Does the plan accumulate state (in-memory, database, file system) without cleanup?
- **External service limits**: Does the plan account for rate limits on third-party APIs?

If bottleneck patterns detected: call `rune:perf` for quantitative analysis.

```
SCALE_TEMPLATE:
- Bottleneck: [what breaks at scale]
- Current plan: [what the plan specifies]
- At 10x: [what happens]
- At 100x: [what happens]
- Remediation: [what to add to the plan]
```

### Step 4: Error Propagation Analysis

Trace failure paths through the planned system.

- **Cascade failures**: If Service A fails, does the plan specify what happens to B, C, D?
- **Retry storms**: Does the plan include retries? Could retries amplify the failure?
- **Silent failures**: Are there operations that could fail without anyone knowing?
- **Inconsistent state**: If a multi-step operation fails midway, is the data left in a valid state?
- **User experience**: When things fail, what does the user see? Is there a degraded mode?
- **Recovery path**: After failure + fix, can the system resume? Or does it require manual intervention?

```
ERROR_TEMPLATE:
- Failure point: [where in the plan]
- Propagation: [what else breaks]
- User impact: [what the user experiences]
- Recovery: [how to get back to good state]
- Missing in plan: [what the plan should specify]
```

### Step 5: Integration Risk Assessment

Check for conflicts with existing code and architecture.

- Use `rune:scout` to find all files the plan will modify or depend on
- **Breaking changes**: Does the plan modify shared interfaces, types, or APIs that other code depends on?
- **Migration gaps**: Does the plan require database migrations? Are they reversible?
- **Configuration drift**: Does the plan add new environment variables, feature flags, or config files?
- **Test invalidation**: Will existing tests break from the planned changes?
- **Deployment ordering**: Does the plan require specific deployment sequence? (DB first, then API, then frontend?)

```
INTEGRATION_TEMPLATE:
- Conflict: [what clashes]
- Existing code: [file:line that would be affected]
- Plan assumption: [what the plan assumes about existing code]
- Reality: [what the existing code actually does]
- Remediation: [how to resolve the conflict]
```

### Step 6: Verdict and Report

Synthesize all findings into an actionable report.

**Before reporting, apply rigor filter:**
- Only report findings you can justify with specific references to the plan or codebase
- Do NOT report theoretical concerns that require 3+ unlikely conditions to trigger
- Prioritize findings that would cause the MOST wasted implementation time if discovered later
- Consolidate related findings — "auth is underspecified" not 5 separate auth findings

**Verdict logic:**
- Any CRITICAL finding → **REVISE** (plan must be updated before Phase 3)
- 3+ HIGH findings → **REVISE**
- HIGH findings with clear remediations → **HARDEN** (add remediations to plan, then proceed)
- Only MEDIUM/LOW findings → **PROCEED** (note findings for implementation awareness)

After reporting:
- If verdict is REVISE: return to `plan` with findings attached as constraints
- If verdict is HARDEN: present remediations to user for plan update
- If verdict is PROCEED: pass findings to cook Phase 3 as implementation notes

## Output Format

```
## Adversary Report: [feature/plan name]
- **Plan analyzed**: [path to plan file]
- **Dimensions checked**: [which of the 5 were relevant]
- **Findings**: [count by severity]
- **Verdict**: REVISE | HARDEN | PROCEED

### CRITICAL
- [ADV-001] [dimension]: [description with plan reference]
  - Attack: [how this breaks]
  - Remediation: [specific fix]

### HIGH
- [ADV-002] [dimension]: [description with plan reference]
  - Attack: [how this breaks]
  - Remediation: [specific fix]

### MEDIUM
- [ADV-003] [dimension]: [description]

### Strength Notes
- [what the plan does well — adversary is harsh but fair]

### Verdict
[Summary: why REVISE/HARDEN/PROCEED, what to do next]
```

## Workflow Modes

### Full Red-Team (default)
All 5 dimensions analyzed. Used for new features, architectural changes, security-sensitive plans.

### Quick Challenge (for smaller plans)
Skip Steps 3-4 (scalability, error propagation). Focus on edge cases, security, and integration.
Trigger: plan modifies < 3 files AND no auth/payment/data logic.

### Security-Focused
Steps 2 and 5 only (security + integration). Used when `sentinel` requests adversarial pre-analysis.
Trigger: plan involves auth, crypto, payment, or user data handling.

## Constraints

1. MUST challenge every plan — no rubber-stamping. At minimum, one finding per analyzed dimension
2. MUST NOT modify the plan or write code — adversary is read-only analysis
3. MUST reference specific plan sections or existing code for every finding
4. MUST escalate to sentinel when auth/crypto/payment attack vectors are identified
5. MUST use concrete attack scenarios, not vague warnings ("could be a problem" is NOT a finding)
6. MUST NOT block on MEDIUM/LOW findings — only CRITICAL and HIGH trigger REVISE verdict
7. MUST include Strength Notes — adversary finds weaknesses AND acknowledges what's well-designed

## Mesh Gates

| Gate | Requires | If Missing |
|------|----------|------------|
| Plan Gate | A plan document exists (from plan skill or user-provided) | Cannot run — ask for plan first |
| Codebase Gate | Access to existing codebase (for integration checks) | Skip Step 5, note in report |

## Sharp Edges

| Failure Mode | Severity | Mitigation |
|---|---|---|
| Over-challenging — nitpicking every line of the plan | HIGH | Rigor filter: only findings you can justify with specific references. Skip theoretical 3+ condition chains |
| False security alarms — flagging secure patterns as vulnerable | HIGH | Call sentinel for validation before reporting security findings as CRITICAL |
| Analysis paralysis — too many findings block all progress | MEDIUM | Max 3 CRITICAL + 5 HIGH. If more found, consolidate or prioritize top impact |
| Missing context — challenging plan without understanding existing codebase | HIGH | Step 0 MUST load existing code context via scout before challenging |
| Scope creep — reviewing existing code quality instead of plan quality | MEDIUM | Adversary reviews THE PLAN, not the codebase. Existing code is context only |
| Redundancy with review/preflight — duplicating post-implementation checks | MEDIUM | Adversary operates PRE-implementation only. Never run adversary on existing code |

## Done When

- All relevant dimensions analyzed (minimum: edge cases + security + integration)
- Every finding references specific plan section or codebase file
- Security-sensitive plans escalated to sentinel (or confirmed not security-relevant)
- Verdict rendered: REVISE, HARDEN, or PROCEED
- Findings formatted for consumption by cook Phase 3 (if PROCEED) or plan (if REVISE)
- Strength Notes section acknowledges well-designed aspects of the plan

## Returns

| Artifact | Format | Location |
|----------|--------|----------|
| Adversary Report | Markdown | inline (stdout) |
| Threat findings | Structured list (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM) | inline |
| Risk matrix per dimension | Table | inline |
| Verdict + remediation list | Markdown | inline |
| Hardened plan notes (if PROCEED) | Text | passed to cook Phase 3 |

## Cost Profile

~4000-8000 tokens input (plan + codebase context), ~2000-3000 tokens output. Opus model for adversarial depth. Runs once per feature plan — high cost justified by preventing wasted implementation cycles.

**Scope guardrail:** adversary reviews THE PLAN only — never audits existing codebase quality or rewrites code.
登录后下载/点赞/收藏 ❤ 48 | ★ 0
adversary

目录结构

SKILL.md

举报内容

提示
