bmad-review-adversarial-general

An adversarial review examines artifacts like design specs with a critical lens to uncover missing requirements, weak assumptions, and hidden defects, outputting a Markdown list of at least ten actionable findings.

Yes, an adversarial review examines code diffs with a critical lens to surface under-specified elements and defects, generating a concise Markdown report of actionable issues for your review workflows.

The best way is to request a skeptical findings report that focuses on what is absent or inconsistent in the product brief, ensuring you receive at least ten actionable issues described in a professional tone.

A skeptical review requires at least ten actionable findings, outputting a concise Markdown list that describes each issue, omission, or weak assumption found during the evaluation of the provided content.

The findings report uses a concise Markdown list format, describing each identified defect, omission, and weak assumption so it can be used directly in your existing review and approval workflows.

You need a skeptical evaluation before implementation or approval to quickly uncover missing requirements, weak assumptions, and hidden defects that would otherwise slip through your standard review processes.