ai-adversarial-loop
From the author
Coordinate a multi-round debate between two agents until the code is clean. adversarial-reviewer (the critic) assumes everything is wrong; fixer implements fixes or disputes them with evidence. They exchange findings through a shared thread file, and each keeps its memory across rounds. Use as the orchestrator's review gate, or when the user asks for an adversarial review-and-fix loop on recent changes (e.g. "/ai-adversarial-loop", "have the critic and fixer go at checkpoint 3").
Install
npx skills add arcasilesgroup/ai-engineering --skill ai-adversarial-loop -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/ai-adversarial-loop/ · Each command fetches the skill straight from GitHub with the open skills CLI.
Byte-identical to the scanned commit, with the repository’s licence and a SOURCE.txt.
Want your agent to suggest skills while you type? See how to use skills from your IDE.
Safety checks on SKILL.md
No warnings.
Why 82
aiqbench computes the trust score from public signals. It is not a security audit, so read a skill before you install it.
Similar skills
Closest to this one by what they do and when they are used.
- adversarial-reviewa5c-ai/babysitterFresh adversarial code review with binary PASS/FAIL verdicts, evidence citations, and anchoring bias prevention via fresh reviewer spawning.Engineering★ 1.9K
- ds-review-loopaicodeking/deepseek-stackRuns an author and a fresh-context reviewer in a loop on the current change until both agree it is correct, for at most four rounds. Use before or after filing a PR, when the user says review loop, get it reviewed, or /ds-review-loop.Engineering★ 166
- adjudicate-reviewpedrohcgs/claude-code-my-workflowTurn an incoming set of findings — from an AI reviewer, a referee report, a code review, a linter, or a second model — into verified fixes, without letting a confident misread damage correct work. Every finding is a CANDIDATE until checked against the actual source. Use whenever you receive review comments, audit findings, or a critique you did not write yourself, especially when the reviewer is a model or when the volume is too large to check by feel.Engineering★ 1.7K
- code-reviewmartinffx/atelierMulti-agent code review run as a debate. Critics raise findings in parallel, an Author defends the change, Critics concede or maintain, and a Judge rules on what stays contested. Findings are classified by kind and blocking, and handled durably when previously decided. Use `rq` to request a review of diffs (defaults to main branch), `rs` to respond to findings and record intentional non-fix decisions beside the relevant code. Triggers on "review this", "review my code", "code review", "check for bugs", "audit this", when examining PRs, pull requests, branches, or diffs. Always asks user before applying fixes or adding decision comments.Engineering★ 50
- the-loopoxbshw/watch-skillThe user built or changed something visual — a UI, an animation, a game, a generated video — and wants it verified, or asks "why does my UI look wrong", "check that the fix actually worked", "does the animation glitch". Use this to record the running thing, critique the recording against plain-language pass criteria, and iterate until it passes with before/after proof.Design★ 551
- evaluate-findingstobihagemann/turboCritically assess external feedback (code reviews, AI reviewers, PR comments) and decide which suggestions to apply using adversarial verification. Use when the user asks to "evaluate findings", "assess review comments", "triage review feedback", "evaluate review output", or "filter false positives".Engineering★ 417
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in