adversarial-squad

adversarial-squad is a skill for Claude Code, Codex from Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty. It costs 160 tokens per session (1,157 once invoked), scanned A, original, MIT.

A method for assembling a small group of independent reviewers at important points in a software design process. Each reviewer examines the work from a different perspective before the findings are combined.

In plain words
What is it for?
Use it after writing a specification, plan, or task list, before merging code, or when making a difficult design decision such as deleting versus migrating something.
Why use it?
It exposes risks, weak assumptions, and missed issues that one reviewer may overlook. The review remains optional and focused on a specific question rather than serving as a routine approval step.

Skill for Claude CodeCodex

Written for no agent in particular: nothing here depends on one.

Good fit Use it after writing a specification, plan, or task list, before merging code, or when making a difficult design decision such as deleting versus migrating something.

Compare 6 skills from other repositories ↓
Install with agentmods
npx agentmods add skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad
About the project

Spec Kitty is an open-source command-line tool that turns product requirements into a repository-based workflow for AI-assisted software development. It stores specifications, plans, tasks, acceptance criteria, reviews, and merge decisions in Git while giving agents isolated git worktrees for parallel implementation. The catalogue add-ons support the project's workflows for coordinating agents and governing their work.

Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty · 1,603 stars · on GitHub · spec-kitty.ai

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 Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty --skill adversarial-squad
Clone the repo
git clone --depth 1 https://github.com/Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty

Made for: Claude Code, Codex.

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-squad

README.md
[![agentmods](https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad/github.svg)](https://agentmods.dev/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad)
Your own site
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad/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-squad

Your own site · 80×15
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/priivacy-ai/spec-kitty/adversarial-squad.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>
Per session 160 Skills are progressive disclosure: only the name and description are preloaded; the body loads when the skill is used.
When invoked 1,157 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 $0.00160 $0.01157
Opus 5 $0.00080 $0.00579
Sonnet 5 $0.00032 $0.00231
Haiku 4.5 $0.00016 $0.00116

Measured 10d ago against content hash fb089048f502, method: parsed. Prices are Anthropic first-party input rates as of 2026-09-09, from the pricing page.

Security

Grade A, and why

adversarial-squad 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.

src/charter/offering/skills/adversarial-squad/SKILL.md · 83 lines

How it starts

The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 83 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.

Adversarial Squad Deployment (harness)

The operational HOW. The doctrinal WHEN/WHY is the procedure adversarial-squad-deployment (packs/built-in/procedures/adversarial-squad-deployment.procedure.yaml), which sits under the brownfield-onboarding paradigm. This skill changes no mission type or guard; it is a technique the orchestrator opts into.

When to use

A squad is worth its tokens at a high-leverage point-cut where one reviewer's blind spot is expensive:

  • after /spec-kitty.specify → pre-spec investigation (scope, prior art, live repros)
  • after /spec-kitty.plan → post-planning brownfield check (foldable issues, split-brain, deprecations)
  • after /spec-kitty.tasks → post-tasks anti-laziness pass (fakeable DoDs, decomposition realism)
  • before merge → architectural-gate / cross-base sweep
  • ad-hoc decision → proponent + adversaries + synthesizer (e.g. delete-vs-migrate)

Do NOT use it as a rubber stamp, and do NOT wire it as a mandatory gate.

The recipe

  1. Frame one sharp question and pick the point-cut. A squad answers a question; it is not a vibe check.
  2. Select 3–4 distinct profiles by lens (bounded). Complementary, not redundant:
    • architect-alphonso — structure / seams / topology
    • debugger-debbie — live-evidence, coverage, "would this catch the regression?"
    • reviewer-renata — anti-laziness, contract-vs-implementation, fakeable assertions
    • randy-reducer — duplication / dead code (⚠ duct-tape bias — read critically)
    • paula-patterns — decomposition, boundaries, second-opinion adjudication
    • planner-priti — scope, sequencing, tracker hygiene
    • python-pedro — implementer feasibility
    • doctrine-daphne — doctrine integrity / DRG wiring Scale past 4 only for an explicit "audit / comprehensive" ask.
  3. Dispatch in parallel, profile-LOADED. Each delegate's prompt MUST begin with: "FIRST run spec-kitty agent profile show <id> and spec-kitty charter context --action <action> --json; apply the resolved initialization, boundaries, directives, and tactics, then state which you applied." Loading the profile — not naming a persona — is the point. Only a read-only harness that cannot invoke the CLI may read packs/built-in/agent_profiles/<id>.agent.yaml; that degraded fallback can diverge because overlays, specializes_from lineage, and enhances/overrides semantics are not applied. Keep delegates read-only unless the task is an isolated implementation in its own worktree.
  4. Require structured, non-fakeable output. Each returns findings as [SEVERITY] file:line — issue — recommendation, ending in a verdict, grounded in cited evidence, with honest concession of where its lens does not apply. A steelman that over-claims is weak; an adversary that concedes nothing is noise.
  5. Match model tier to difficulty. Strong tier for analytical/adversarial lenses; lighter tier for mechanical/tracker delegates.
  6. Synthesize; second-opinion on divergence. Aggregate. Where delegates disagree on a consequential point, do NOT average — adjudicate from the source, or dispatch one focused second-opinion delegate. Be critical of any delegate with a known bias. If irreconcilable, escalate to the human with both positions.
  7. Record the convergent evidence and act. Capture confirmed findings (artifact, findings doc, or memory). The value is convergent evidence that survived independent scrutiny — not a single opinion.

Read the full file on GitHub · 83 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 · 83 lines · 160 tokens per session scan A fb089048f502

Subscribe to this mod's changes

adversarial-squad is a skill published in the GitHub repository Priivacy-ai/spec-kitty (1,603 stars, last pushed 2d ago), licensed MIT. It adds 160 tokens to every session and 1,157 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 2026-08-30.

Related

Other skills, from other repositories

clarity-over-cleverness

Apply clarity-over-cleverness rewrites — prefer code a junior engineer can read at a glance over compact-but-clever code. Use during /build's simplify step and during /code-simplify (alias "simplify the code"). Never weakens behavior; suite must remain green.

loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular · 68 tokens

spring-code-review-rubric

Pre-commit code review rubric for Spring Boot 4 changes. Used by spring-code-reviewer to produce 08-code-review.md before any commit. Covers traceability, architecture, Spring idioms, error handling, data access, security, test quality, clarity, and migration.

loiane/specs-driven-development-spring-angular · 66 tokens

6_gofer_validate

Validate implementation with 10-category engineering rubric (100 points).

eai-support/eai-gofer · 17 tokens

enforcement-audit

Run a compliance audit against a technology instruction file, detecting discrepancies, planning workstreams, implementing fixes, and validating quality gates.

stefaniuk/loadout · 30 tokens

spec-to-code-compliance

Check code against the documentation that specifies it - which requirements hold, which the code contradicts, which are absent, and what the code does that no document mentions. Use when comparing an implementation against a whitepaper, protocol spec, or design document.

stefaniuk/loadout · 56 tokens

code-review

Run a structured Spec Kit review focused on code compliance, documentation quality, or test coverage, positioned within the spec-driven development pipeline.

stefaniuk/loadout · 29 tokens