bmad-review-adversarial-general

Review work artifacts and output at least 10 actionable findings as Markdown.

Updated May 5, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/devalexanderdaza/bmad-any --skill bmad-review-adversarial-general-devalexanderdaza
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: bmad-review-adversarial-general
Source: https://github.com/devalexanderdaza/bmad-any/tree/main/.agents/skills/bmad-review-adversarial-general
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/devalexanderdaza/bmad-any --skill bmad-review-adversarial-general-devalexanderdaza

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve?

This Skill solves the problem of superficial content reviews that miss critical flaws, gaps, and overlooked improvement opportunities in submitted work artifacts like code diffs, specifications, user stories, and documentation.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Skeptical Adversarial Analysis: Reviews all content types with extreme skepticism to uncover hidden issues that standard reviews miss.
  • Actionable Findings Generation: Identifies a minimum of 10 actionable issues to fix or improve, including missing elements not just existing errors.
  • Use Case: A development team can use this Skill to review a new feature pull request before merge to catch overlooked edge cases, missing test coverage, and requirement gaps early in the workflow.

Quick Start

Use the bmad-review-adversarial-general skill to review the attached feature specification and list all critical issues found.

Frequently Asked Questions about bmad-review-adversarial-general

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I perform an adversarial code review to catch hidden flaws before merging?

Adversarial code review applies extreme skepticism to submitted work artifacts to identify critical flaws, gaps, and improvement opportunities before peer review workflows. It evaluates code diffs, specifications, and documentation by surfacing at least 10 actionable findings.

What is the best way to ensure a technical spec review finds missing requirements?

A skeptical spec review identifies missing requirements by flagging missing elements alongside existing errors rather than just correcting text. It generates a minimum of 10 actionable issues formatted as a structured Markdown list for immediate developer action.

Can I use an adversarial review for any work artifact beyond source code?

Adversarial review applies to any work artifact including code diffs, technical specifications, user stories, and documentation. It evaluates all content types with extreme skepticism to uncover hidden issues that standard peer reviews often miss.

How do I structure gap analysis findings for a feature pull request?

Gap analysis findings for a pull request are structured as a Markdown list of issues containing at least 10 actionable items. This includes missing test coverage, overlooked edge cases, and requirement gaps formatted for direct integration into pre-submission workflows.

When should I use a cynical content review instead of standard peer review?

Use cynical content review when standard peer reviews miss critical flaws and overlooked improvement opportunities in work artifacts. It provides extreme skeptical analysis to surface hidden issues, requiring at least 10 actionable findings before proceeding to merge or approval.