bmad-review-adversarial-general

An adversarial review analyzes content with extreme skepticism to expose hidden flaws, omissions, and weaknesses. It prioritizes missing requirements and ambiguous decisions over minor errors, producing a concise findings report for rapid remediation.

You run an adversarial review by submitting your specification, user story, or document artifact for cynical analysis. The review validates input readability, identifies at least ten distinct issues, and outputs a Markdown list guiding your fixes.

Yes, you can perform a critical review on uncommitted changes, diffs, and branches. The system accepts these development artifacts, applies skeptical analysis to surface design gaps and risk areas, and halts execution if the content is empty or unreadable.

The best way to find missing requirements is running a cynical content audit before stakeholder sign-off. This skeptical review process re-analyzes the document if zero findings are initially produced, actively avoiding false negatives and ensuring critical gaps are exposed.

If your document is unreadable or empty, the critique process halts immediately to prevent invalid analysis. If an initial review produces zero findings, the system automatically re-analyzes the content to avoid false negatives and ensure actual issues are reported.

You need a ruthless content audit when preparing a release or reviewing a spec to surface unclear assumptions. Applying this skeptical review before stakeholder sign-off ensures design gaps, ambiguous decisions, and risk areas in your artifacts are identified for rapid remediation.