Loading skill
Install any skill in seconds. Free to start, no credit card required.
Get Started Free →michael-denyer/interrogate
Use for "interrogate", "adversarial review", "multi-model review", "challenge this", "stress test this code", "find blind spots", or "tear this apart". Multiple LLM reviewers challenge changes from independent angles.
Passed 17 of 20 test cases with the skill, and 6 of 20 without it.
and 12 more in the full report
11 fixed6 passed either way3 still failing0 broke3 errored
Tokens, turns and time describe resource use, not a dollar price.
This benchmark measured an earlier version of the skill.
One of 11 test cases the skill fixed. Same model, same prompt, with and without the skill.
What exact string should be assigned to the subagent_type parameter when spawning a standard review subagent when no reasoning effort level is specified?
| Checked | Without skill | With skill |
|---|---|---|
| Sets subagent_type to general-purpose. | Missed | Passed |
The instructions your model reads when the skill loads.
On Codex, read the platform mapping, including its per-skill notes, before following this skill.
On GitHub Copilot, read the platform mapping, including its per-skill notes, before following this skill.
Spawn one reviewer per configured model to adversarially review code changes. The adversarial signal comes from model diversity, not assigned personas. The deliverable is a synthesized verdict. Do NOT auto-apply changes.
Identify what to review from context:
git diff main...HEAD (or the appropriate base branch) for the full changeset.Package the diff or file contents with any surrounding context files the reviewers need to understand the code.
Before spawning reviewers, state the intent in one clear paragraph from the user's message, commit messages, the PR description if one exists, and the code. If you're unsure about the intent, ask the user before proceeding.
Launch all reviewers in a single message with the Agent tool, one per entry on the interrogate reviewers line in pstack-models.md, labeled Reviewer A, B, and so on to match the entry count. If the sheet or that line is missing, use the table defaults.
| Subagent | Default model |
|---|---|
| Reviewer A | opus |
| Reviewer B | fable |
| Reviewer C | sonnet |
| Reviewer D | haiku |
Each reviewer gets subagent_type: "general-purpose", readonly: true, and model set to its configured entry, or its table default when there is no configured line. Omit model for an auto or inherit-parent entry, so that reviewer runs on the parent model.
If the Agent tool rejects a configured entry, run that reviewer on its family's table default and say so. Families go by model name, such as Opus, Fable, or Sonnet. With no family match, use Reviewer A's default. If it rejects a table default, spawn with the closest equivalent from the valid slugs in its error message (prefer the same family and reasoning tier), and open a separate PR to update the default table. Do not block the review on the slug issue. Never treat an alias entry as a rejected slug or apply either fallback to it.
Read references/reviewer-prompt.md and fill in the same template for every reviewer with the stated intent, the diff or file contents, the rubric from references/rubric.md, and the code-quality lens from references/code-quality-review.md.
test cases passed, vs 6 / 20 without
Published skills whose descriptions closely match this one, with their headline benchmark lift.
More skills from the same source and nearby in the registry, with their headline benchmark lift.