/adversarial-review

name: adversarial-review
description: Review existing work with independent fresh reviewers and fresh synthesis. Use for an adversarial review, review-plan request, or a requested panel critique of a draft, plan, workflow, argument, or implementation.

Adversarial review

Review the supplied work against its original purpose, evidence, audience, and constraints. Read `references/host.md` and `references/panel-execution.md` and follow that complete execution contract and the shared Quality and revision contract in `council-synthesis.md`. The shared `scripts/council.py` infers this review workflow from its installed directory.

The public default is **four fresh local reviewers**: skeptic, pre-mortem, completeness checker, and Chief of Staff, followed by a **separate fresh synthesis worker**. The host and authoring workers do not count as fresh reviewers. Use the review guidance in each bundled persona. If saved or explicitly requested provider seats apply, use those exact seats instead and report the count clearly.

Reviewers independently identify material factual errors, unsupported claims, implementation defects, missing requirements, usability problems, and consequential risks. Give evidence or locations, explain consequences, and propose the smallest sufficient fix. Separate demonstrated defects from uncertain concerns and personal preferences. Preserve the user's intended voice; do not rewrite merely to impose a house style. If there is nothing material to fix, say so. This is not an instruction to invent objections.

The synthesizer weighs evidence rather than counting votes, retains important minority findings, and returns a prioritized set of changes and open decisions. A missing required reviewer makes the result incomplete even when useful synthesis is available. Never call a partial panel a complete review.

Return findings first. Edit the artifact only when the user has authorized revisions, and verify selected changes in the actual final artifact. Preserve accepted repairs, rejected suggestions and held questions in a short working summary. Do not launch another review, multi-round debate, or automatic council after revising. A further review requires a new request or an already commissioned stage and a new archive. If no existing artifact or proposal is available, resolve that missing input or route an explicit development request to Council once.