yanacuti1121/yana-ai/adversarial-team-pattern

Trust tier 3
  • community
Source check pending

Checking that the SKILL.md file is still in the repository.

Template pattern for multi-agent analysis where agents hold opposing mandates. Use when spawning subagents for complex research, code review, architecture decisions, or risk assessment. Triggers on: 'adversarial team', 'devil's advocate analysis', 'multi-perspective review', 'challenge this decision', 'stress test this plan', 'red team this'.

Install

npx vskill@latest install yanacuti1121/yana-ai/adversarial-team-pattern

SKILL.md

Adversarial Team Pattern

Multi-agent analysis using opposing mandates — not consensus. Agents challenge each other rather than reinforce each other.

Core principle: consensus from multiple agents = one agent with extra compute. Value comes from productive disagreement.

When to use

  • High-stakes decisions (architecture, security, major refactor)
  • Analysis where confirmation bias is a real risk
  • Any time you'd normally just "get a second opinion" (make it an adversarial second opinion)
  • Code review of critical paths
  • Research where you want to surface what could go wrong, not just what looks right

Do NOT use for: simple lookups, single-file changes, mechanical tasks with a clear right answer.

Team structure

Spawn these roles in a single message (parallel, run_in_background: true):

ROLE A — Advocate
  Mandate: Build the strongest case FOR the proposal.
  Find evidence that supports it. Assume it will work.
  Deliver: 3–5 concrete supporting arguments with evidence.
 
ROLE B — Challenger  
  Mandate: Find everything wrong with the proposal.
  Assume it will fail. Find the weakest points.
  Deliver: 3–5 specific failure modes or risks with evidence.
 
ROLE C — Constraint Finder
  Mandate: Find what's missing, what's not accounted for,
  what the other two missed. Be the skeptic of both sides.
  Deliver: unknowns, edge cases, unstated assumptions.
 
ROLE D — Synthesizer  (run AFTER A, B, C complete)
  Mandate: Read all three reports. Produce a forced conclusion.
  Cannot say "it depends". Must pick a side or a modified path.
  Deliver: verdict + confidence % + 1 concrete next action.

Execution template

Analyze [TOPIC] using adversarial team pattern.
 
Agent A (Advocate): Make the strongest case FOR [TOPIC].
Find 3–5 concrete supporting arguments with evidence.
Do not hedge. Assume success.
 
Agent B (Challenger): Find everything wrong with [TOPIC].
Find 3–5 specific failure modes or risks.
Assume failure. Do not soften findings.
 
Agent C (Constraint Finder): Find what A and B both missed.
Surface unknowns, unstated assumptions, edge cases.
Be skeptical of both the advocate and challenger.
 
After all three complete, Agent D (Synthesizer) reads all reports
and produces a forced conclusion: verdict + confidence % + next action.
No "it depends" in the conclusion.

Output Contract

Advocate findings:   [3–5 supporting arguments]
Challenger findings: [3–5 failure modes]
Missing/unknowns:    [what neither side saw]
 
VERDICT:     [clear position — not neutral]
CONFIDENCE:  [0–100%]
REASONING:   [which argument won and why]
NEXT ACTION: [one concrete step]

In-Skill Verification

Before Synthesizer produces verdict:

  1. Check: did Advocate cite at least 1 concrete piece of evidence (not just assertion)?
  2. Check: did Challenger identify at least 1 specific failure mode (not generic risk)?
  3. If either check fails → Synthesizer notes "incomplete input" in output with confidence ≤ 50%

Anti-patterns

❌ All agents instructed to "analyze objectively" — that's consensus, not adversarial
❌ Synthesizer allowed to conclude "both sides have merit, consider your context"
❌ Challenger role that softens findings ("on the other hand, it could work if...")
❌ Running agents sequentially where later agents read earlier agents' output (anchoring bias)
❌ Skipping Synthesizer — raw debate without forced conclusion wastes the pattern

Confidence calibration

SituationMax confidence
All 3 roles agree90%
Advocate + Synthesizer agree, Challenger has weak evidence75%
Split between roles, Synthesizer forced to pick60%
Missing data flagged by Constraint Finder50%
Insufficient evidence from any role35%

Security

  • Security scanPassed, 90 of 100Pattern checks on the skill's files.
  • Model reviewPassed

See the full security report

Quality evaluation

  • Task evaluationNot runNo evaluation yet. Run one in Skill Studio.

See evaluation results

Source

Popularity

7-day trend score
0

Not refreshed yet.

Works with

Any agent vskill installs to: 56 targets in all. These 39 have a page on this site.

  • Claude Code
  • Cursor
  • GitHub Copilot
  • Windsurf
  • Codex
  • Gemini CLI
  • Cline
  • Amp
  • Roo Code
  • Goose
  • Continue
  • Kilo Code
  • Junie
  • Trae
  • OpenHands
  • Qwen Code
  • AI Agent
  • Tabnine Chat
  • Sourcegraph Cody
  • Amazon Q
  • Firebase Genkit
  • Sweep
  • Devin
  • Phind
  • Mentat
  • Claude Desktop
  • Aider
  • GPT Pilot
  • Plandex
  • bolt.new
  • v0
  • Replit Agent
  • Anse
  • TypingMind
  • BetterChatGPT
  • LibreChat
  • Warp AI
  • Pieces
  • Fig AI
Embed badge
vskill VERIFIED badge
[![vskill VERIFIED](https://verified-skill.com/api/v1/skills/yanacuti1121/yana-ai/adversarial-team-pattern/badge)](https://verified-skill.com/skills/yanacuti1121/yana-ai/adversarial-team-pattern)

Something wrong with this skill or its page? Tell us.