adversarial-review

A command that asks OpenCode to challenge the code and the reasoning behind its design, while only reporting review findings.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it for an adversarial review of uncommitted changes or a comparison between the current branch and a base branch.
Why use it?
It helps expose weaknesses in implementation choices without changing the project during the review.

Command

Install

Getting it into your agent

One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.

agentmods
npx agentmods add commands/tasict/opencode-plugin-cc/adversarial-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/tasict/opencode-plugin-cc
Per session 15 Only the description is in the session, so the agent can decide to use it. The body loads when it is invoked.
When invoked 684 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. Scan, not verified.
Origin original No closer match found in the catalogue.
Token cost

What it costs to keep this loaded

Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.

ModelPer sessionOnce invoked
Fable 5 $0.00015 $0.00684
Opus 5 $0.00008 $0.00342
Sonnet 5 $0.00003 $0.00137
Haiku 4.5 $0.00002 $0.00068

Measured 2d ago against content hash 4067932ac35c, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-08-30, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

adversarial-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 2d ago.

A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.

Nothing flagged

None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.

plugins/opencode/commands/adversarial-review.md · 60 lines

What it actually says

Run an adversarial OpenCode review through the shared built-in reviewer.

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 OpenCode's output verbatim to the user.

Execution mode rules:

  • If the raw arguments include --wait, do not ask. Run the review in the foreground.
  • If the raw arguments include --background, do not ask. Run the review in a Claude background task.
  • 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 even when git diff --shortstat is empty.
    • Only conclude there is nothing to review when the relevant working-tree status is empty or the explicit branch diff is empty.
    • Recommend waiting only when the 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.
  • Adversarial reviews support custom focus text. Any text after flags is treated as a focus area.
  • The companion script handles --adversarial internally.

Foreground flow:

  • Run:
node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/opencode-companion.mjs" adversarial-review $ARGUMENTS
  • Return the command stdout verbatim, exactly as-is.
  • Do not paraphrase, summarize, or add commentary before or after it.
  • Do not fix any issues mentioned in the review output.

Background flow:

  • Launch the review with Bash in the background:
Bash({
  command: `node "${CLAUDE_PLUGIN_ROOT}/scripts/opencode-companion.mjs" adversarial-review $ARGUMENTS`,
  description: "OpenCode adversarial review",
  run_in_background: true
})
  • Do not call BashOutput or wait for completion in this turn.
  • After launching the command, tell the user: "OpenCode adversarial review started in the background. Check /opencode:status for progress."
Changes

What this file has done since we first saw it

Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.

  1. 2d ago First seen · 60 lines · 15 tokens per session scan A 4067932ac35c

Subscribe to this mod's changes

adversarial-review is a command published in the GitHub repository tasict/opencode-plugin-cc (19 stars, last pushed 4d ago), licensed Apache-2.0. It adds 15 tokens to every session and 684 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. No closer match exists in the catalogue, so it is treated as the original; first seen 2026-08-30.