skills.rest
bricerising
bricerisingCOMMUNITY
Explore all skills by this author →
GitHub

review

Run a four-phase adversarial code review with evidence-backed findings and verdicts.

7|Updated Jan 26, 2026
Search Tags:#evidence#debate#code-review#pull-request#pr-review#findings#adversarial-review
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/bricerising/enterprise-software-playbook --skill review-bricerising
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: review
Source: https://github.com/bricerising/enterprise-software-playbook/tree/main/skills/review
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/bricerising/enterprise-software-playbook --skill review-bricerising

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

💡 This Skill includes references (resource) components.

What problem does it solve?

Run a structured adversarial review to surface evidence-backed findings for code changes, PRs, or designs, delivering a ranked, actionable verdict.

Core Features & Use Cases

  • Four-phase workflow: Critique → Defense → Rebuttal → Verdict, with clear roles (Attacker, Defender, Judge) and stable IDs.
  • Evidence-backed findings with file and line references, priority levels, and concrete remediation steps.
  • Ideal for thorough PR reviews, architectural assessments, and design critiques that require multi-perspective debate before shipping.

Quick Start

Submit the code change to be reviewed and invoke the four-phase adversarial review to generate findings and a final verdict.

Frequently Asked Questions about review

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I run an adversarial code review for a pull request?▼

Adversarial code review applies an attacker, defender, and rebuttal workflow to surface concrete issues in code changes. It enforces phase formatting and file plus line evidence to produce a stable verdict with severity and fix-priority.

What is the best way to perform evidence-backed code reviews at scale?▼

Evidence-backed code reviews use a structured attacker, defender, and judge workflow to produce concrete findings with file and line references. This approach scales across multi-module changes and design critiques to deliver a ranked, actionable verdict.

Can I use this adversarial review workflow for design reviews and multi-module changes?▼

Yes, the adversarial review workflow scopes design reviews and multi-module changes alongside pull requests. It applies an attacker, defender, and judge debate to generate evidence-backed findings and a stable verdict with severity and fix-priority.

How does the attacker defender rebuttal workflow surface concrete code issues?▼

The attacker, defender, and rebuttal workflow surfaces concrete code issues by enforcing a structured four-phase debate. The attacker critiques, the defender responds, the rebuttal challenges, and the judge issues a final verdict with severity and fix-priority.

Do I need specific dependencies or environments to run structured PR reviews?▼

No specific dependencies are required to run structured PR reviews. The workflow operates independently using a four-phase critique, defense, rebuttal, and verdict process to generate evidence-backed findings with file and line references.

Related Skills

Explore More Software Engineering Skills→
loomantixloomantix
2

deepgrill

Orchestrate multi-lane adversarial code review for high-risk pull requests.

Official
Advanced
remiboivin021remiboivin021

release

Evaluate feature branches against acceptance criteria and output a MERGE READY or NOT READY verdict.

Community
Advanced
R2W1csR2W1cs
1

lint-and-validate

Lint and validate JavaScript and Python code for syntax and style issues.

Community
Intermediate
PthahnixPthahnix
393

Multiagent Debate

Orchestrate Critic-Defender-Judge debates to validate research artifacts.

Community
Advanced