Gauntlet
From the author
Evidence-driven adversarial review and root-cause repair of code, designs, APIs, infrastructure, tests, and agent workflows. Use for deep reviews, red-team reviews, edge-case audits, production-readiness checks, or requests to find and fix defects iteratively. Supports sub-agents or a tracked solo workflow. Not for ordinary implementation or cosmetic edits unless explicitly invoked.
Install
npx skills add agentskillexchange/skills --skill Gauntlet -a claude-code
Installs to .claude/skills/Gauntlet/ · 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
- Ships scripts we have not reviewedLow
Why 76
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.
- investigatetestdouble/hanEvidence-based investigation of issues, bugs, API calls, integrations, and other aspects of software development that need a deep dive to find the root cause and solutions. Use when you need to debug, troubleshoot, diagnose, or figure out why something is broken. Does not review code for quality or style — use code-review for auditing changes or post-code-review-to-pr for posting review feedback to GitHub. Does not assess architectural health or structural risk — use architectural-analysis for architectural concerns. Does not research open-ended options, prior art, or how something works when nothing is broken — use research for that. Does not plan the structural change a root cause calls for — use plan-a-change. Does not map bounded contexts or domain boundaries — use ddd-analysis. Does not capture feedback on Han's own skills — use han-feedback for that.Finance★ 327
- code-reviewphuryn/pm-skillsReview code for actionable defects. Correctness is the core; performance and security are optional sub-cases of the same engine. Anchors on agreements between participants across a boundary, forces a violating execution, and refutes every candidate before reporting. Use when asked to review changes, find bugs, audit a codebase, or check whether a fix is safe.Engineering★ 27.5K
- 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
- 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
- architecture-reviewthiientv/godmodeReviews an existing codebase for structural friction, unclear ownership, leaky or shallow interfaces, excessive coupling, misplaced state, poor testability, and risky dependency direction, then prioritizes evidence-backed improvement candidates. Use for architecture audits, modularization, modernization, or recurring cross-cutting change pain. Not for designing one new interface, simplifying a local function, or fixing a reproduced bug.Planning★ 99
- ui-auditnahid-sparktales/agent-dispatcherReview an existing interface and return ranked, concrete findings — each with its location, the user consequence, and a specific fix — instead of taste notes. Use when asked to critique, audit or review a screen or flow, when someone's UI work needs judging, or when an interface "feels off" and the problem needs naming. Not for proving a change renders and functions, not for inventing a new visual direction, and not for an accessibility conformance audit, which is its own discipline.Design★ 59
Ratings & reviews
—
no reviews
Tried this skill? Rate it to help others. Sign in
Discussion
Join the discussion. Sign in