devil-advocate

An adversarial review for architecture decisions argues against a proposal to surface overlooked risks and counterarguments before proceeding. It enforces four mandatory counterarguments and a proposer response workflow to ensure high-stakes changes are fully validated.

To conduct a risk analysis for a strategy pivot, propose your decision and trigger an adversarial review. The process generates four structured counterarguments covering technical risks, better alternatives, hidden assumptions, and harm scenarios, requiring a proposer reply before finalizing.

Yes, you can use adversarial review for production-critical changes. It is specifically designed to evaluate significant decisions by surfacing failure modes through mandatory counterarguments, ensuring robust risk analysis and decision-making before deployment.

For new skill creation decision-making, four mandatory counterarguments are enforced: technical risk, better alternative, hidden assumption, and harm scenario. These structured counterarguments must be addressed in a proposer response before recording the final decision.

You should not use an adversarial review for low-stakes or routine proposals. The enforced four-counterargument workflow and proposer response mechanism are designed specifically for high-stakes architecture decisions, strategy pivots, and production-critical changes where surfacing failure modes is essential.