adversarial-critique

Category: Tools & Productivity | Uploader: leonletto | Downloads: 0 | Version: v1.0（Latest）

Use when an implementer is blocked mid-work by a design flaw, contradiction, or unforeseen fork with 2-3 ways to resolve it - produces a defended pick that unblocks the work and leaves an audit trail so the decision can be revisited if it later proves wrong --- # Adversarial Critique ## Overview Stress-test a mid-implementation design fork by dispatching sub-agents that argue opposing options across three structured rounds. Produces a defended pick with invariants and acceptance criteria — not a "both approaches work" summary.

Changelog: Source: GitHub https://github.com/leonletto/thrum

Directory Structure

Current level: tree/main/claude-plugin/skills/adversarial-critique/

📄 SKILL.md 8.3 KB

SKILL.md

---
name: adversarial-critique
description:
  Use when an implementer is blocked mid-work by a design flaw, contradiction,
  or unforeseen fork with 2-3 ways to resolve it - produces a defended pick that
  unblocks the work and leaves an audit trail so the decision can be revisited
  if it later proves wrong
---

# Adversarial Critique

## Overview

Stress-test a mid-implementation design fork by dispatching sub-agents that
argue opposing options across three structured rounds. Produces a defended pick
with invariants and acceptance criteria — not a "both approaches work" summary.
The artifact left on disk is an audit trail: if the decision proves wrong later,
future readers can see exactly why it was made and what was considered.

## When to use

- Implementation work has hit a blocker — a flaw, contradiction, or unforeseen
  fork — and can't continue until a decision is made
- The resolution has 2-3 plausible paths, each with real tradeoffs
- The decision is substantive enough that "just pick one" would likely be
  regretted
- You want an audit trail so the decision can be revisited if it proves wrong
  later

## When NOT to use

- Upfront design before implementation starts — use `superpowers:brainstorming`
  instead
- Obvious choices where any option works — just pick and continue
- Emergencies where speed beats rigor
- Pure research questions — use `superpowers:efficient-multi-agent-research`
- 4+ options — decompose the decision or narrow first

## Inputs

**Required:**

- Topic (one-sentence statement of the blocker)
- 2 or 3 options, each with a short name and one-sentence description

**Strongly recommended:**

- Context block: relevant file excerpts, prior art, schema snippets, constraints
- Engagement axes: cross-cutting concerns the debate MUST address. Example axes
  that worked on a real debate (the enlw.9 role-query-hardening debate — pick
  analogues for your domain):
  - cross-daemon semantics
  - schema impact
  - test strategy
  - API surface
  - blast radius

Without these, sub-agents re-grep the codebase and produce generic arguments.
Pre-assembled context is the difference between a real debate and a shallow one.

## The three rounds

Dispatch one sub-agent per option, in parallel (single message, multiple Agent
tool calls). **Model: sonnet** for all dispatches — quality matches opus on
structured critique at a fraction of the cost.

### Round 1 — opening positions

Each agent gets: topic, context block, engagement axes, their assigned option.
Word limit ~450. Required output:

- **Argument** (why this option)
- **Proposed shape** (concrete — API, struct, contract)
- **Pre-emptive rebuttal** (predict opponent's strongest attack, answer it now)

The pre-emptive rebuttal forces steelmanning and prevents R2 surprise-reveal.

### Round 2 — rebuttals

Fresh Agent dispatch per side (not SendMessage — returned agents don't
re-activate). Pass in the other side(s)' R1 verbatim. Required output:

- **Concessions** (1-3 bullets, honest) — an agent that concedes nothing is
  performative; reject and re-prompt
- **Rebuttals** (point-by-point, cite file:line)
- **Refined position** (same side, tightened)

### Round 3 — synthesis

Fresh dispatch per side. Pass in opponent's R2. Required output — pick exactly
one:

- **HOLD** (same position, sharpened invariants)
- **CONCEDE** (switch to opponent's refined position)
- **SYNTHESIZE** (hybrid — describe precisely, no hand-waving)

Plus, regardless of which:

- Cross-cutting invariants in **IF X AND Y THEN Z** form
- Acceptance test paths and mock strategy
- Out-of-scope list

### Resolution

- Both/all sides → same synthesis: lock it
- Sides diverge: coordinator picks with rationale, flags residual disagreement
  in the transcript

## 3-option variant

Each agent defends its own corner throughout. R1 as normal (3 parallel). In R2
and R3 each agent receives the _other two's_ prior round verbatim. Same required
outputs. Cost scales from ~100k (2 options) to ~150k (3 options).

## Early exit

If R1 agents converge on the same answer (e.g., both concede the opposite option
is actually better), skip R2 and go straight to R3 synthesis to lock the
invariants. Record the early exit in the transcript.

## Verifying sub-agent claims

Sub-agents will cite file:line evidence in R2 and R3. Before accepting a
synthesis, verify any load-bearing citation against actual source. Misreads
happen — synthesizing from a wrong-premise debate produces a wrong decision. If
a core argument rests on a misread, re-dispatch that agent's round with the
correction. See `superpowers:verification-before-completion` for the general
discipline.

## Output artifact

Write the full transcript to
`dev-docs/brainstorms/YYYY-MM-DD-<topic>-debate.md`:

```markdown
# <Topic> — Adversarial Debate

**Date:** YYYY-MM-DD **Options considered:** A / B [/ C] **Resolution:**
<picked option or hybrid name>

## Context

<context block>

## Engagement axes

<cross-cutting concerns>

## R1 — Opening positions

### Option A

<verbatim R1 output>
### Option B
<verbatim R1 output>

## R2 — Rebuttals

### Option A

<verbatim R2 output>
### Option B
<verbatim R2 output>

## R3 — Synthesis

### Option A

<verbatim R3 output>
### Option B
<verbatim R3 output>

## Resolution

- **Picked:** <option or hybrid>
- **Rationale:** <1-3 paragraphs>
- **Invariants:** <IF/THEN list>
- **Acceptance tests:** <paths + mock strategy>
- **Out of scope:** <list>
- **Residual disagreement:** <none, or what remains>

## Post-script

<anything the coordinator caught AFTER the debate — critical for audit if the
decision is revisited later>
```

**Return to caller:** one-line summary (picked option + rationale) plus file
path. Keeps the caller's context lean.

## Post-resolution

Once the debate resolves, the decision only unblocks the work if it lands in
your working context in an actionable shape:

- **Update your working plan/context with the invariants.** Paste the IF/THEN
  invariants into the task prompt or plan that will carry forward, so the next
  implementer sees them alongside the code to write. A decision that only lives
  in the debate transcript is decide-shaped, not unblock-shaped.
- **Sketch one acceptance test before implementing.** Write a single test — even
  just a skeleton — that would fail if the invariants are violated. If you can't
  write one, the invariants are under-specified; re-open R3 rather than
  implementing against fuzzy constraints. Writing surfaces blind spots that
  reading never catches.
- **Optional audit-trail enhancement:** when the decision affects multiple
  future tasks or will be referenced in a PR description, record it with
  `bd decision` so the rationale is queryable from the beads graph (not just
  from the brainstorm markdown).

## Anti-patterns

- **R2 identical to R1** — agent wrote a performative concession. Reject and
  re-prompt with "what specifically did the opponent land?"
- **Hand-wavy synthesis** — R3 compromise that can't be stated as IF/THEN
  invariants is usually dodging the hard question. Require the format.
- **Sub-agents gave up because they couldn't find a file** — context block
  wasn't good enough. Embed quotes, paths, line numbers inline; don't make
  sub-agents re-grep.
- **Synthesis dispatched to a sub-agent** — don't. The coordinator holds the
  full debate; sub-agents only see what you pass them. Dispatch CRITIQUE, not
  SYNTHESIS.

## Model and cost

Sonnet for all dispatches. See `~/.claude/CLAUDE.md § Sub-Agent Model Selection`
— the project-wide rule that every `Agent` dispatch must pass `model` explicitly
(never inherit parent Opus by default). Roughly ~100k tokens for 2 options,
~150k for 3 options. This is an investment that buys a reviewer-ready decision
an implementer can execute in a fresh session without re-hashing the design.

## See also

- `superpowers:brainstorming` — upfront design dialogue with the user (used
  before implementation starts; complements this skill, which handles
  mid-implementation blockers)
- `superpowers:writing-plans` — turns the resolution into an implementation plan
  if the blocker requires re-planning
- `superpowers:efficient-multi-agent-research` — sister pattern for research
  questions
- `superpowers:verification-before-completion` — verification discipline for
  sub-agent claims
- `superpowers:dispatching-parallel-agents` — general pattern for parallel
  sub-agent work

Comments 0

Latest | Hot

Please login before commenting.

Loading comments...

adversarial-critique

Directory Structure

SKILL.md

Report

Notice