git:20260925.f6554ff to git:20260928.7d7cde1

12 added, 1 removed. Audit A to A.

---

name: vibe-devil-advocate-review

- description: Challenges a recommendation, design, or large change across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design document, or large feature branch.

+ description: Challenges a recommendation, design, or large change across 5 dimensions (consistency, completeness, actionability, alignment, risk), ideally from a fresh context or a different model. Panel mode runs several independent lenses in parallel on a release candidate, verifies every finding against the current head, and routes confirmed ones to file owners. Use before shipping a significant recommendation, design, large branch, or multi-agent release.

user-invocable: true

---

# vibe-devil-advocate-review

Before shipping a recommendation, challenge it. Models still tend to agree with their own earlier reasoning and with the user. A reviewer that shares the author's context inherits the author's blind spots, so the review is strongest when the reviewer doesn't share them.

## When to Use This Skill

- Before sending a design document for approval

- Before shipping a recommendation that combines multiple inputs

- Before merging a large feature branch

- When you feel "too confident" about a solution

- User asks for a review or second opinion

## When NOT to Use This Skill

- Trivial changes (typo fixes, formatting)

- When the user explicitly says "just ship it"

- During brainstorming (don't kill ideas before they form)

- Small code changes (use `vibe-quality-loop`)

## Get an Independent Reviewer

In order of preference:

1. **A different model family** — for example, have Codex (GPT) review Claude's work, or Claude review Gemini's. Different training produces different blind spots.

2. **A fresh subagent** that gets only the artifact and the stated goals, not the conversation that produced them.

3. **Self-review** as a last resort. Explicitly assume the artifact is wrong and look for the evidence.

Give the reviewer the artifact, the goals and constraints, and this skill's 5 dimensions. Don't give it your own assessment.

## The 5 Dimensions

1. **Consistency** — Do all parts agree with each other? Any contradictions?

2. **Completeness** — What's missing? Unaddressed edge cases? Blind spots?

3. **Actionability** — Is every recommendation concrete and measurable? Could someone actually do it?

4. **Alignment** — Does it match the stated goals, constraints, and user needs?

5. **Risk** — What could go wrong? Second-order effects? Blast radius of failure?

## Steps

1. **Read the artifact** in full. Don't skim.

2. **For each dimension**, actively look for problems. Assume there are some.

3. **Verify each issue** — Keep only issues you can support with evidence (a quote, `file:line`, or a concrete failure scenario). Drop the ones you can't. Padding the list with speculative issues is as unhelpful as rubber-stamping.

4. **Score** each dimension 1–5 (1 = critical issues, 5 = solid)

5. **Verdict**: APPROVE / REVISE (with required changes) / REJECT (with blocking issues)

+ ## Panel Mode (release candidates built by several agents)

+ One reviewer carries one set of blind spots, and unverified findings waste fix cycles. For a release or content lock:

+ 1. **Freeze a head.** Every lens reviews the same commit.

+ 2. **Run lenses in parallel**, each with a narrow brief and a bounded report format (`file:line`, severity). Pick lenses that fit the product, for example: editorial and tone, facts and privacy, UX and accessibility, engineering and performance.

+ 3. **Verify separately.** A distinct stage reproduces each finding on the current head and drops stale or false ones (already fixed, or a rule firing on text that already complies).

+ 4. **Dedupe and rank** P0–P2 across lenses.

+ 5. **Route** each confirmed finding to the owner of the file (`vibe-workstream-orchestration`), then re-run only the affected lenses.

+ If the harness supports scripted workflows, run the panel as one: it verifies more rigorously than routing findings by hand.

## Output Format

### Devil's Advocate Review

**Reviewer**: [different model / fresh subagent / self]

| Dimension | Score | Issues |

|-----------|-------|--------|

| Consistency | X/5 | [count] |

| Completeness | X/5 | [count] |

| Actionability | X/5 | [count] |

| Alignment | X/5 | [count] |

| Risk | X/5 | [count] |

### Critical Issues

1. [issue, evidence, concrete failure scenario]

### Warnings

1. [non-blocking concern]

### Verdict: APPROVE / REVISE / REJECT

[rationale]