Adversarial Ai Review

If the user provides a file path, read it. If they provide a PR URL, extract context with gh pr view. If they say "my changes", use the git working tree.

Modes

Pre-Flight Checks

Before running the adversarial AI, verify:

Architecture Mode

1. Gather Context

Before running the CLI, you need a thorough context document. Either:

• User provides one: A markdown file with the decision, tradeoffs, and approaches. Read it and proceed.
• You build one: Draft a context document that includes:
  • System architecture overview (what the app does, key patterns)
  • The specific decision or question
  • All approaches being considered, with tradeoffs for each
  • Constraints (performance, cost, operational complexity, team size)
  • What the user is leaning toward and why, if present
• A git diff or PR link: If the decision is tied to specific code changes, include a diff or PR link and summarize the changes, including original intent and/or plan document.

2. Identify Key Files

List 5-15 files that the adversarial AI should read to understand the relevant code:

• The code most directly affected by the decision
• Related models, services, or controllers
• Existing tests that show current behavior
• Configuration files if relevant

3. Build the Prompt

Construct a prompt with this structure and write it to /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md:

## Context

[Paste the context document or a concise summary]

## Key Files to Read

Read these files to understand the codebase before forming an opinion:

- path/to/file1 — [why it matters]
- path/to/file2 — [why it matters]
...

## The Question

[The specific architectural decision or design question]

## Approaches

### Approach A: [Name]
[Description, tradeoffs]

### Approach B: [Name]
[Description, tradeoffs]

## Your Task

1. Read all the key files listed above. Understand the actual code, not just
   the descriptions.
2. Challenge the assumptions in BOTH approaches. What are the authors missing?
3. Identify edge cases and failure modes for each approach.
4. Flag any bugs, inconsistencies, or debt in the existing code that would
   affect this decision.
5. Evaluate against these criteria: [list criteria relevant to the decision,
   e.g., scalability, cost, operational complexity, extensibility, testability]
6. Give a clear recommendation. Do NOT hedge. Take a position and defend it.
   If you think both approaches are wrong, say so and propose an alternative.
7. If you find bugs or issues in the existing code, list them explicitly.

4. Run the Adversarial AI

Generate a topic slug from the decision (e.g., separate-classification-from-detection).

Running Codex

codex exec \
  --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox \
  -o "/tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md" \
  - < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md

Running Claude Code

claude -p --model opus \
  --allowed-tools "Read Grep Glob Bash(git:*)" \
  --dangerously-skip-permissions \
  < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md \
  > /tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md

5. Present Results

1. Read the output file at /tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md.
2. Present a summary to the user with:
   • The adversarial AI's recommendation and key reasoning
   • Any bugs or issues it found
   • Points where it disagrees with your current thinking
   • Anything surprising or that you hadn't considered
3. Tell the user the file path for full review.

Code Review Mode

1. Determine What to Review

2. Gather Context

Collect two things:

1. The diff: Use the appropriate git command from the table above. Write it to /tmp/adversarial-diff-{topic}.txt.
2. Coder intent: What are the changes trying to accomplish? Sources:
   • PR description (from gh pr view)
   • The user's explanation
   • Commit messages on the branch
   • Any linked task or plan context

For PRs, also extract linked task URLs from the PR description and fetch their details if available.

3. Build the Prompt

Instruct the adversarial AI to use the /code-review skill with adversarial framing. Write this prompt to /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md:

Use the /code-review skill to review the following changes.

## Coder Intent

[What the changes are trying to accomplish — from PR description, user
explanation, or commit messages]

## Diff

Run this command to get the diff:

    [the appropriate git diff command]

Or read the diff directly from: /tmp/adversarial-diff-{topic}.txt

## Additional Instructions

Review with an adversarial mindset. Beyond the standard code review:
- Challenge design decisions. Is there a simpler way?
- Find bugs the author missed. Off-by-one, nil risks, race conditions.
- Identify edge cases that will break in production.
- If something is bad, say so directly. Do NOT hedge.
- Give a clear verdict: APPROVE, REQUEST_CHANGES, or NEEDS_DISCUSSION.

4. Run the Adversarial AI

Running Codex

codex exec \
  --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox \
  -o "/tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md" \
  - < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md

Running Claude Code

claude -p --model opus \
  --allowed-tools "Read Grep Glob Bash(git:*)" \
  --dangerously-skip-permissions \
  < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md \
  > /tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md

5. Present Results

Same as Architecture Mode step 5: read the output, summarize key findings, tell the user the file path.

Long Prompts

If the prompt exceeds ~500 words (common for architecture reviews with full context documents), write it to /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md and pipe it in rather than passing it as a CLI argument.

Codex:

codex exec \
  --dangerously-bypass-approvals-and-sandbox \
  -o "/tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md" \
  - < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md

Claude Code:

claude -p --model opus \
  --allowed-tools "Read Grep Glob Bash(git:*)" \
  --dangerously-skip-permissions \
  < /tmp/adversarial-prompt-{topic}.md \
  > /tmp/adversarial-review-{topic}.md

Error Handling

Guidelines

• Don't filter or soften the adversarial AI's output. Present findings directly, even if they are critical of code you wrote. The whole point is adversarial review.
• Flag disagreements. If you disagree with the adversarial AI's assessment, say so and explain why. The user benefits from seeing the tension between two models.
• Iterate if needed. If the review is shallow or misses the point, refine the prompt and run again. A bad prompt produces a bad review. Common fixes: add more context files, clarify the question, include specific concerns you want challenged.
• Never skip the context document for architecture reviews. The quality of the review is directly proportional to the quality of the context provided.
• Time budget. The adversarial CLI can take 2-5 minutes. Set expectations with the user before running it.