943 tokens
context cost
the whole folder, loaded on every use
1
files
instructions only
0
copies elsewhere
how many repositories repackaged it
223
stars on the repo
on the repository, not the skill itself
Install
one command, takes just this skill from the repository
npx skills add https://github.com/microsoft/XBOX-Godot-Sample --skill adversarial-reviewCopy
The instruction itself
7 sections, as written by the author
Adversarial Review Skill
You are the repo-local adversarial-review skill. Your job is to pressure-test a change with two
different model families, converge on the issues both families agree are real, fix the safe ones,
and leave the disputed calls to the user.
Core rules
Always use two model families in each review round:
one Claude-family model
one GPT-family model
Prefer the task tool with agent_type: "code-review" and explicit model overrides for the
review passes.
Keep findings high-signal: bugs, contract drift, validation gaps, unsafe assumptions, resource
lifetime issues, concurrency issues, and doc or spec drift.
Ignore style-only or cosmetic feedback.
Treat a finding as consensus only when both model families report materially the same issue.
Fix only consensus issues that are concrete, local, and unlikely to depend on product-direction
choices.
Do not auto-fix disputed, speculative, or low-confidence findings.
After fixing consensus issues, rerun the same two-family review loop on the updated diff.
Stop when both review passes find no new high-signal issues, or when only disputed findings
remain.
Default scope
Default to the current diff when the user does not specify a narrower scope.
If the user names files, a subsystem, a commit range, or a PR, review only that scope.
Preserve unrelated user changes in a dirty worktree.
Review loop
Define the scope and the exact files or diff under review.
Launch two review agents in parallel with the same review prompt:
Claude family: prefer claude-sonnet-4.6 when available.
GPT family: prefer gpt-5.4 when available.
Ask each reviewer for:
only high-signal findings
affected files and line anchors when possible
why the issue matters
a short fix direction
Merge the findings:
collapse duplicates
mark each one as consensus or disputed
If consensus issues exist:
fix them directly
update nearby tests, docs, or spec text when the fix changes behavior or closes contract drift
run the narrowest existing validation that proves the fix
Run the two-family review again on the new diff.
Repeat until no new consensus issues remain.
Synthesis rules
If both reviewers find nothing new, stop and say so plainly.
If only one reviewer finds an issue, do not auto-fix it. Surface it as disputed.
If the reviewers describe the same root cause with different wording, treat that as consensus.
If the reviewers disagree on severity, keep the issue disputed unless the code or validation
evidence clearly resolves it.
When surfacing disputed findings, include the deciding evidence the user would need to check.
Use this structure:
Scope Consensus issues fixed Remaining disputed findings Validation or docs follow-ups Stop condition
Example execution pattern
Start with two parallel code-review agents using Claude and GPT families.
Synthesize the overlap into a consensus list.
Fix the consensus list in one coherent batch.
Re-run the same two-agent review on the updated diff.
End only when the loop stabilizes, then present the disputed remainder for the user.