bmad-review-adversarial-general

An adversarial review applies a cynical, skeptical lens to your specification to surface missing elements, inconsistencies, and risks. It generates a Markdown findings report detailing at least ten issues with severity, impact, and suggested mitigations for stakeholder remediation.

An adversarial content review is a skeptical evaluation process that identifies deep issues and gaps in documents or user stories. You need it when preparing proposals or artifacts for stakeholders to ensure hidden risks are surfaced and documented before decisions are made.

Yes, adversarial analysis can be applied to software diffs, design documents, specifications, and user stories. It evaluates content across software, design, and policy domains to identify inconsistencies and produce a prioritized Markdown list of findings for remediation.

The best way to structure findings from a critical review is a Markdown-formatted list containing at least ten issues. This deterministic workflow outputs a clear, organized report with severity, impact, and suggested mitigations ready for stakeholder evaluation.

Yes, the adversarial review process enforces a deterministic workflow that ensures the findings report contains at least ten issues. This guarantees a thorough, critical evaluation by surfacing a comprehensive list of risks, gaps, and inconsistencies from the provided content.