/adversarial-squad

name: adversarial-squad
description: >-
  Deploy a bounded, profile-loaded adversarial review squad at an SDD point-cut
  (post-spec, post-plan, post-tasks, pre-merge, or an ad-hoc decision) so independent
  doctrine lenses converge on findings one reviewer would miss.
  Triggers: "deploy a squad", "adversarial squad", "post-tasks anti-laziness pass",
  "pre-spec investigation squad", "brownfield check", "second opinion on this design",
  "review squad", "run a multi-lens review".
  Does NOT handle: the implement-review loop (use spec-kitty-implement-review),
  spec/plan/tasks generation, or direct code editing by the orchestrator. It is an
  optional, charter/memory-activated enrichment — it never gates a mission.

Adversarial Squad Deployment (harness)

The operational **HOW**. The doctrinal **WHEN/WHY** is the procedure `adversarial-squad-deployment` (`packs/built-in/procedures/adversarial-squad-deployment.procedure.yaml`), which sits under the `brownfield-onboarding` paradigm. This skill changes **no** mission type or guard; it is a technique the orchestrator opts into.

When to use

A squad is worth its tokens at a high-leverage point-cut where one reviewer's blind spot is expensive:

• **after `/spec-kitty.specify`** → pre-spec investigation (scope, prior art, live repros)
• **after `/spec-kitty.plan`** → post-planning brownfield check (foldable issues, split-brain, deprecations)
• **after `/spec-kitty.tasks`** → post-tasks anti-laziness pass (fakeable DoDs, decomposition realism)
• **before merge** → architectural-gate / cross-base sweep
• **ad-hoc decision** → proponent + adversaries + synthesizer (e.g. delete-vs-migrate)

Do NOT use it as a rubber stamp, and do NOT wire it as a mandatory gate.

The recipe

1. **Frame one sharp question** and pick the point-cut. A squad answers a question; it is not a vibe check. 2. **Select 3–4 distinct profiles by lens** (bounded). Complementary, not redundant:

• `architect-alphonso` — structure / seams / topology
• `debugger-debbie` — live-evidence, coverage, "would this catch the regression?"
• `reviewer-renata` — anti-laziness, contract-vs-implementation, fakeable assertions
• `randy-reducer` — duplication / dead code (⚠ duct-tape bias — read critically)
• `paula-patterns` — decomposition, boundaries, second-opinion adjudication
• `planner-priti` — scope, sequencing, tracker hygiene
• `python-pedro` — implementer feasibility
• `doctrine-daphne` — doctrine integrity / DRG wiring

Scale past 4 only for an explicit "audit / comprehensive" ask. 3. **Dispatch in parallel, profile-LOADED.** Each delegate's prompt MUST begin with: *"FIRST run `spec-kitty agent profile show <id>` and `spec-kitty charter context --action <action> --json`; apply the resolved initialization, boundaries, directives, and tactics, then state which you applied."* Loading the profile — not naming a persona — is the point. Only a read-only harness that cannot invoke the CLI may read `packs/built-in/agent_profiles/<id>.agent.yaml`; that degraded fallback can diverge because overlays, `specializes_from` lineage, and `enhances`/`overrides` semantics are not applied. Keep delegates read-only unless the task is an isolated implementation in its own worktree. 4. **Require structured, non-fakeable output.** Each returns findings as `[SEVERITY] file:line — issue — recommendation`, ending in a verdict, grounded in cited evidence, with honest concession of where its lens does not apply. A steelman that over-claims is weak; an adversary that concedes nothing is noise. 5. **Match model tier to difficulty.** Strong tier for analytical/adversarial lenses; lighter tier for mechanical/tracker delegates. 6. **Synthesize; second-opinion on divergence.** Aggregate. Where delegates disagree on a consequential point, do NOT average — adjudicate from the source, or dispatch one focused second-opinion delegate. Be critical of any delegate with a known bias. If irreconcilable, escalate to the human with both positions. 7. **Record the convergent evidence and act.** Capture confirmed findings (artifact, findings doc, or memory). The value is convergent evidence that survived independent scrutiny — not a single opinion.

Invocation

Invoke by name (`adversarial-squad`) with the point-cut + question, e.g. *"adversarial-squad: post-tasks anti-laziness on WP01–WP08."* This skill is the alias surface; the doctrine procedure is the canonical record of the technique.

Invariants

Bounded (3–4) · profile-LOADED · structured output · model discipline · live-evidence-grounded · second-opinion on divergence · **never a mission gate**.