Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →archive228/adversarial-verify
Review a diff against the goal spec assuming the code is BROKEN. The reviewer that lives in the maker's head always agrees with itself — this pulls review into a hostile, separate pass. Invoke after every code change before marking work done.
Passed 16 of 22 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 22 without it.
and 21 more in the full report
16 fixed2 passed either way1 still failing3 broke
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
One of 16 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
Can you audit the following pull request changes against the task requirements? Act as a hostile reviewer searching for fake fixes or hidden shortcuts that mask underlying bugs. Do not execute the code or provide corrected code. Return the evaluation purely as JSON containing a pass/fail status field and a list of specific line failures with their cause.
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| The JSON output uses 'passes' as the boolean key instead of 'status'. | Missed | Passed |
| The JSON output uses 'failures' as the array key instead of 'line_failures'. | Missed | Passed |
| The JSON failure items use 'why' as the explanation key instead of 'cause'. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
Default stance: the code is broken until proven otherwise. Your job is to find where. Do not be polite. Do not propose fixes. Do not run the code. Just hunt.
{"passes": false, "failures": [{"line": 42, "shortcut": "swallowed errors", "why": "..."}]}
If it genuinely passes, say so in one line. Most of the time, it doesn't.
test cases passed, vs 6 / 22 without
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.