doubt-driven-development

Adversarial review subjects non-trivial architecture choices and code changes to cross-examination by a fresh-context perspective before final approval. It surfaces hidden assumptions and confirmation bias early through a structured five-step doubt-driven workflow.

To perform a doubt-driven review, provide the artifact and contract, then execute the CLAIM, EXTRACT, DOUBT, RECONCILE, and STOP steps. This iterative process cross-examines decisions and yields a reconciled finding before final output.

Use adversarial review for code changes when facing non-trivial decisions prone to overlooked edge cases or confirmation bias. It ensures high-stakes workflows and production releases are cross-checked by a dedicated fresh-context perspective before standing.

Yes, doubt-driven development supports high-stakes workflow governance by applying its five-step adversarial review process to significant choices. It provides iterative refinement and escalation paths when issues are found, enabling safer production releases.

The best way to surface hidden assumptions is applying an explicit CLAIM, EXTRACT, DOUBT, RECONCILE, and STOP workflow. This cross-checks design decisions against a fresh-context adversarial perspective to reconcile findings before a final verdict.