doubt-driven-development

Adversarial review for architectural decisions is performed by submitting the artifact and contract to a fresh-context reviewer to surface concrete counter-evidence before finalizing the claim. This bounded process prevents overconfidence and catches edge cases early.

Doubt-driven development is a structured workflow enforcing adversarial review before committing non-trivial decisions. Use it for migrations, security-sensitive logic, or cross-service contracts to surface gaps and issues before implementation begins.

To validate cross-service contracts, apply the CLAIM, CONTRACT, ARTIFACT, DOUBT, RECONCILE, and STOP steps to classify artifacts and surface counter-evidence. This structured workflow identifies gaps or issues before implementation finalization.

Yes, a fresh-context reviewer can be used to catch edge cases in security-sensitive logic through a bounded adversarial review. The process surfaces concrete findings by applying the claim-contract-evidence workflow with clear stop conditions.

Bounded adversarial review for correctness-critical decisions is limited by its defined stop conditions and artifact classification scope. It focuses on surfacing counter-evidence before finalizing a claim, relying on optional cross-model escalation rather than exhaustive manual analysis.

Architectural review misses edge cases when overconfidence prevents fresh-context analysis. Applying a structured claim-contract-evidence workflow with adversarial review surfaces counter-evidence and gaps before finalizing non-trivial decisions.