adversarial-reviewer

To run an adversarial review, provide your technical design or product spec and request a structured critique. The framework challenges assumptions, evidence, and edge cases, requiring explicit author responses to ensure decisions are well-supported.

A structured attack-vector framework systematically critiques documents across seven dimensions: assumptions, evidence, alternatives, longevity, edge cases, usability, and scope. This process surfaces hidden risks and prevents weak reasoning from slipping into architecture decisions.

Yes, you can stress-test business proposals and PRDs using this adversarial reviewer. It evaluates weak reasoning in documents, designs, and proposals by challenging underlying assumptions and consequences to improve overall rigor.

Yes, the adversarial review process requires explicit author responses. After challenging assumptions and evaluating edge cases, the framework mandates a formal debate exchange before delivering a final verdict on the document's viability.

The best way to proactively challenge assumptions during document creation is using the proactive challenge mode. It provides ongoing tension-checks and in-work verification to surface edge cases and risks before finalizing technical designs or specs.

You should avoid a devil's advocate approach for simple, low-stakes documents where a structured debate framework adds unnecessary friction. It is designed for complex PRDs, architecture decisions, and technical designs requiring rigorous stress-testing.