adversarial-doc-review

adversarial-doc-review is a skill for Claude Code from juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins. It costs 153 tokens per session (3,007 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A review of an existing technical document that looks for flaws likely to cause bad architecture or implementation decisions. It covers documents such as product requirements, architecture decisions, technical specifications, and design proposals.

In plain words
What is it for?
Finding risky decisions, missing constraints, and design problems in technical documents before development begins.
Why use it?
It challenges the document's assumptions and framing instead of only checking spelling or whether sections are present.

Skill for Claude Code

Written for Claude Code: allowed-tools in frontmatter. Also seen: mentions subagents; names the AskUserQuestion tool.

Part of the discuss plugin — 1 skill, 4 commands, 1 agent shipped together

Good fit Finding risky decisions, missing constraints, and design problems in technical documents before development begins.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review
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.

Any agent
npx skills add juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins --skill adversarial-doc-review
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins

Made for: Claude Code.

Or install discuss, the plugin that ships this one along with the rest of its 1 skill, 4 commands, 1 agent.

Wrote this? Show the measurements

A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.

agentmods badge for adversarial-doc-review

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>

Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.

agentmods 80×15 button for adversarial-doc-review

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins/adversarial-doc-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 153 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 3,007 The whole file, excluding the scripts and references it only reads on demand.
Security scan A 0 findings. A grade says what 26 rules found in the file — not that it is safe. Third-party audits
  • NVIDIA SkillSpector pass 7 Sept 2026
How audits are shown
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 5.1 $0.00153 $0.03007
Opus 5 $0.00077 $0.01503
Sonnet 5 $0.00031 $0.00601
Haiku 4.5 $0.00015 $0.00301

Measured 10d ago against content hash 40d8ac3acaa2, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-10, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

adversarial-doc-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 10d 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.

discuss/skills/adversarial-doc-review/SKILL.md · 277 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 277 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Adversarial Doc Review

Dispatches a reviewer that hunts for the subset of documentation problems that actually matter: the ones that cause a bad architecture, design, or implementation decision. It is not a proofreader and not a completeness checker.

The reviewer is the discuss:doc-adversary subagent.

Why this is dispatched and not inlined

The review depends on the reviewer forming an independent model of the problem before absorbing the document's framing. That is impossible in a context window that already contains the document, its drafts, or the discussion that produced it — the framing is already there and the blind-read phase becomes theater.

Therefore: always run the reviewer in a fresh context. Never perform this review yourself in the main conversation.

If subagents are unavailable, tell the user plainly that the review will be weaker and why, and offer these fallbacks in order:

  1. Run the reviewer in a new session with only the doc path and the repo.
  2. Run it inline anyway, and mark the report as context-contaminated.

Do not silently downgrade. The contamination is the single largest failure mode of this skill.

Dispatch

Use the Agent tool with subagent_type: "discuss:doc-adversary". Do not give it a name:, and do not deliberately background it.

Do not assume that gets you a blocking call that hands back the report inline. Depending on the harness, an Agent call may run async no matter how you invoke it, returning a task id and notifying you later. Never build the review around the report coming back in the tool result. OUTPUT_PATH below is the channel that works everywhere; treat anything the tool result happens to contain as a bonus.

Pass the reviewer paths, never content. Do not summarize the document, do not paste excerpts, do not explain what it is trying to do, do not mention who wrote it or that it was generated. Every one of those transmits the framing you are trying to keep out.

The prompt is four lines and nothing else:

Read the full file on GitHub · 277 lines

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. 10d ago First seen · 277 lines · 153 tokens per session scan A 40d8ac3acaa2

Subscribe to this mod's changes

adversarial-doc-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository juanmhidalgo/claude-plugins (8 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 153 tokens to every session and 3,007 once invoked, about $0.0008 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 2026-08-31.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

ADR Decision Quality

Ensure ADRs capture context, decision, alternatives, tradeoffs, and follow-ups in a way that prevents future drift.

s977043/river-review · 28 tokens

Architecture Traceability & Consistency

Ensure design changes stay consistent across ADRs, diagrams, and specs; decisions are traceable; and drift is explicitly managed.

s977043/river-review · 32 tokens

tech-spec

Technical Specification Document: Creates detailed technical specs (RFCs, design docs) for features, systems, and integrations. Use this skill whenever the user wants to write a tech spec, design doc, RFC, technical proposal, system design, or API specification. Also trigger when the user says 'spec out', 'design…

camilooscargbaptista/cto-toolkit · 124 tokens

abusing-dpapi-for-credential-access

Extract and decrypt Windows DPAPI-protected secrets (Credential Manager, browser logins/cookies, Wi-Fi credentials, KeePass keys) online or offline using SharpDPAPI, SharpChrome, Mimikatz, or Impacket's dpapi.py, including domain-wide decryption via the DPAPI backup key. Use during authorized red-team…

mukul975/Anthropic-Cybersecurity-Skills · 97 tokens

discuss-red-team

CocoDiscuss Red-Team Mode — adversarial devil's advocate session that challenges spec assumptions before $plan. Invoked via $discuss --red-team.

Snowflake-Labs/cocoplus · 36 tokens

openlore-brainstorm

Transform a feature idea into an annotated story using a Domain Sketch or Constrained Option Tree. Use when asked to brainstorm, explore, or shape a feature before implementation.

clay-good/OpenLore · 40 tokens