Skill v1.0.0

currentLLM-judged scan90/100

yanacuti1121/yana-ai/adversarial-team-pattern

──Details

PublishedOctober 24, 2026 at 06:54 AM

Content Hashsha256:069cad09e907e5cd...

Git SHA97b3ed577797

──Files

Files (1 file, 4.3 KB)

SKILL.md4.3 KBactive

SKILL.md · 126 lines · 4.3 KB

version: "1.0.0" name: adversarial-team-pattern description: "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'." source: ai-berkshire/xbtlin (MIT) — pattern adapted from investment-team.md four-master debate model tier: TIER 2 — CORRECTNESS

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:

Check: did Advocate cite at least 1 concrete piece of evidence (not just assertion)?
Check: did Challenger identify at least 1 specific failure mode (not generic risk)?
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

Situation	Max confidence
All 3 roles agree	90%
Advocate + Synthesizer agree, Challenger has weak evidence	75%
Split between roles, Synthesizer forced to pick	60%
Missing data flagged by Constraint Finder	50%
Insufficient evidence from any role	35%

All versions