doubt-driven-development

You can validate risky architecture decisions by running an adversarial, issues-only review loop that extracts your artifact and contract, actively hunts for failure modes, and reconciles findings before you ship.

Doubt-driven development is an adversarial review technique used to disprove risky decisions in fresh context. You should use it for high-stakes code changes, architecture modifications, and any correctness-sensitive logic where assumptions can silently become facts.

To prevent hidden assumptions from causing bugs in cross-module logic, isolate the smallest reviewable artifact with a clear contract, then run an adversarial review in fresh context to find contract violations before acting.

Yes, adversarial review works for invariant-dependent assertions by applying a CLAIM, EXTRACT, DOUBT, RECONCILE, and STOP discipline to classify findings by precedence and prevent incorrect outcomes.

The best way to review non-trivial code decisions without prior bias is to perform contract-focused extraction and run an issues-first review in fresh context, ensuring the reviewer validates the artifact without being influenced by your reasoning.

You should not use an adversarial review cycle for trivial findings or when limited cycles are reached, as the process enforces bounded escalation and stop conditions to prevent unnecessary review overhead.