bmad-review-adversarial-general

An adversarial review critically evaluates content like specifications or diffs to identify design gaps and risks. It produces a structured Markdown findings list containing at least ten documented issues, providing actionable remediation guidance to improve overall content rigor.

The best way to identify issues in a technical diff is through cynical adversarial analysis. The process evaluates submitted artifacts and outputs a structured Markdown findings list containing at least ten discovered issues with actionable remediation guidance.

Yes, you can review user stories to surface missing requirements and potential design gaps. The cynical adversarial analysis applies to any artifact requiring critical evaluation, producing a Markdown findings list with at least ten issues and actionable remediation steps.

Yes, the adversarial findings report includes actionable remediation guidance. The structured Markdown output documents a minimum of ten issues found during the cynical analysis, providing clear steps to improve content quality and rigor.

A cynical analysis for content quality is a highly critical evaluation process that identifies issues and risks in artifacts like specifications or diffs. You need it when content requires maximum rigor, delivering a Markdown findings list of at least ten issues with remediation guidance.