doubt-driven-development

To catch bad assumptions before they ship, apply an adversarial fresh-context review to extract the artifact and contract, then classify findings against the text to surface hidden risks. This forces a separate reviewer mindset to look for unstated edge cases and contract violations.

Adversarial code review challenges non-trivial decisions by using a fresh-context reviewer mindset to find unstated assumptions, hidden coupling, and contract violations. It classifies findings as actionable, trade-off, or noise to correct real issues without overreacting.

You need a fresh-context review for unfamiliar code when correctness matters more than speed, such as before merging cross-module changes or approving production-impacting decisions. It surfaces risky assumptions while correction is still cheap.

Yes, you can apply doubt-driven development to high-stakes claims and cross-module changes by turning them into reviewable artifacts with explicit contracts. A bounded reconciliation process then classifies findings to ensure you correct real issues without overreacting to false alarms.

You classify findings from an adversarial review through bounded reconciliation, sorting issues as actionable, trade-off, or noise against the artifact text. This explicit classification prevents overreacting to false alarms while correcting real contract violations.

The process is limited by its requirement for an explicit artifact and contract, making it unsuitable for trivial tasks where speed matters more than correctness. It also requires bounded iteration to prevent reconciliation from stalling development on noise.