ホーム/安全与合规/adversarial-review
A

adversarial-review

by @potetov
4.6(12)

対立モデルを召喚して敵対的レビューを行い、異なる視点から作業に挑戦し、包括的な検証を提供します。

Adversarial AISecurity AuditingRed TeamingThreat ModelingCybersecurityGitHub
インストール方法
npx skills add poteto/noodle --skill adversarial-review
compare_arrows

Before / After 効果比較

1
使用前

従来のコードレビューは、主に手動または単一モデルの静的解析に依存しており、一般的な問題は発見できるものの、複雑な論理的脆弱性、潜在的な攻撃面、または特定のモデルでは検知しにくい盲点に対しては、しばしば力不足でした。レビューの深さと広さは、レビュー担当者の経験と視点に限定されていました。

使用後

敵対的レビューを導入することで、異なるモデル(CodexやClaudeなど)が様々な視点からコードに対して攻撃的な挑戦を行います。この方法は、より現実的な攻撃シナリオをシミュレートし、従来のレビューでは見過ごされがちな深い脆弱性や潜在的なリスクを発見し、コードのセキュリティと堅牢性を大幅に向上させます。

description SKILL.md

adversarial-review

Adversarial Review Spawn reviewers on the opposite model to challenge work. Reviewers attack from distinct lenses grounded in brain principles. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict — do NOT make changes. Hard constraint: Reviewers MUST run via the opposite model's CLI (codex exec or claude -p). Do NOT use subagents, the Agent tool, or any internal delegation mechanism as reviewers — those run on your own model, which defeats the purpose. Step 1 — Load Principles Read brain/principles.md. Follow every [[wikilink]] and read each linked principle file. These govern reviewer judgments. Step 2 — Determine Scope and Intent Identify what to review from context (recent diffs, referenced plans, user message). Determine the intent — what the author is trying to achieve. This is critical: reviewers challenge whether the work achieves the intent well, not whether the intent is correct. State the intent explicitly before proceeding. Assess change size: Size Threshold Reviewers Small < 50 lines, 1–2 files 1 (Skeptic) Medium 50–200 lines, 3–5 files 2 (Skeptic + Architect) Large 200+ lines or 5+ files 3 (Skeptic + Architect + Minimalist) Read references/reviewer-lenses.md for lens definitions. Step 3 — Detect Model and Spawn Reviewers Create a temp directory for reviewer output: REVIEW_DIR=$(mktemp -d /tmp/adversarial-review.XXXXXX) Determine which model you are, then spawn reviewers on the opposite: If you are Claude → spawn Codex reviewers via codex exec: codex exec --skip-git-repo-check -o "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" "prompt" 2>/dev/null Use --profile edit only if the reviewer needs to run tests. Default to read-only. Run with run_in_background: true, monitor via TaskOutput with block: true, timeout: 600000. If you are Codex → spawn Claude reviewers via claude CLI: claude -p "prompt" > "$REVIEW_DIR/skeptic.md" 2>/dev/null Run with run_in_background: true. Name each output file after the lens: skeptic.md, architect.md, minimalist.md. Reviewer prompt template Each reviewer gets a single prompt containing: The stated intent (from Step 2) Their assigned lens (full text from references/reviewer-lenses.md) The principles relevant to their lens (file contents, not summaries) The code or diff to review Instructions: "You are an adversarial reviewer. Your job is to find real problems, not validate the work. Be specific — cite files, lines, and concrete failure scenarios. Rate each finding: high (blocks ship), medium (should fix), low (worth noting). Write findings as a numbered markdown list to your output file." Spawn all reviewers in parallel. Step 4 — Verify and Synthesize Verdict Before reading reviewer output, log which CLI was used and confirm the output files exist: echo "reviewer_cli=codex|claude" ls "$REVIEW_DIR"/*.md If any output file is missing or empty, note the failure in the verdict — do not silently skip a reviewer. Read each reviewer's output file from $REVIEW_DIR/. Deduplicate overlapping findings. Produce a single verdict: ## Intent ## Verdict: PASS | CONTESTED | REJECT ## Findings <numbered list, ordered by severity (high → medium → low)> For each finding: - [severity] Description with file:line references - Lens: which reviewer raised it - Principle: which brain principle it maps to - Recommendation: concrete action, not vague advice ## What Went Well <1–3 things the reviewers found no issue with — acknowledge good work> Verdict logic: PASS — no high-severity findings CONTESTED — high-severity findings but reviewers disagree on them REJECT — high-severity findings with reviewer consensus Step 5 — Render Judgment After synthesizing the reviewers, apply your own judgment. Using the stated intent and brain principles as your frame, state which findings you would accept and which you would reject — and why. Reviewers are adversarial by design; not every finding warrants action. Call out false positives, overreach, and findings that mistake style for substance. Append to the verdict: ## Lead Judgment Weekly Installs284Repositorypoteto/noodleGitHub Stars120First Seen14 days agoSecurity AuditsGen Agent Trust HubWarnSocketWarnSnykPassInstalled oncodex276opencode273gemini-cli272kimi-cli271amp271github-copilot271

forumユーザーレビュー (0)

レビューを書く

効果
使いやすさ
ドキュメント
互換性

レビューなし

統計データ

インストール数297
評価4.6 / 5.0
バージョン
更新日2026年3月17日
比較事例1 件

ユーザー評価

4.6(12)
5
0%
4
0%
3
0%
2
0%
1
0%

この Skill を評価

0.0

対応プラットフォーム

🔧Claude Code
🔧OpenClaw
🔧OpenCode
🔧Codex
🔧Gemini CLI
🔧GitHub Copilot
🔧Amp
🔧Kimi CLI

タイムライン

作成2026年3月17日
最終更新2026年3月17日