adversarial-review

Run an adversarial Cursor review through the shared review runtime (scripts/review.mjs --adversarial). Position it as a challenge review that questions the chosen implementation, design choices, tradeoffs, and assumptions — it is not just a stricter pass over implementation defects.

Raw slash-command arguments: $ARGUMENTS

Core constraint:

• This command is review-only.
• Do not fix issues, apply patches, or suggest that you are about to make changes.
• Your only job is to run the review and return Cursor's output verbatim to the user.
• Keep the framing focused on whether the current approach is the right one, what assumptions it depends on, and where the design could fail under real-world load, concurrency, or edge cases.

Execution mode rules:

• If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run in the foreground.
• If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run in the background.
• Otherwise, estimate the review size before asking:
  • For working-tree review, start with git status --short --untracked-files=all.
  • For working-tree review, also inspect both git diff --shortstat --cached and git diff --shortstat.
  • For base-branch review, use git diff --shortstat <base>...HEAD.
  • Treat untracked files or directories as reviewable work for auto or working-tree review even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
  • Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant scope is actually empty.
  • Recommend waiting only when the scoped review is clearly tiny, roughly 1-2 files total and no sign of a broader directory-sized change.
  • In every other case, including unclear size, recommend background.
  • When in doubt, run the review instead of declaring that there is nothing to review.
• Then use AskUserQuestion exactly once with two options, putting the recommended option first and suffixing its label with (Recommended):
  • Wait for results
  • Run in background

Argument handling:

• Preserve the user's arguments exactly.
• Do not strip --wait or --background yourself — pass them through untouched; the script reads them.
• Do not weaken the adversarial framing or rewrite the user's focus text.
• Uses the same review-target selection as /cursor:review: working-tree review, branch review, and --base <ref>.
• Unlike /cursor:review, it takes extra free-form focus text after the flags (e.g. "question the retry/backoff design").

Foreground flow:

• Run:

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review.mjs" --adversarial --wait -- "$ARGUMENTS"

• Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is — it is a code review. Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
• Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

• Run the SAME command with --background instead of --wait, as a normal (foreground) Bash call — review.mjs detaches the worker itself and returns a job id immediately, so do not set run_in_background:

node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/review.mjs" --adversarial --background -- "$ARGUMENTS"

• Present the returned job id and the /cursor:status / /cursor:result hints exactly as printed. Do not poll or wait for completion in this turn.