feat: created the adversay agent and adversarial-review skill

2026-07-22 16:35:00 -06:00
parent df948c69bf
commit 72c6bb74c2
5 changed files with 392 additions and 0 deletions
@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+# Adversary
+
+An **adversarial plan-conformance reviewer**. Where [`code-reviewer`](../code-reviewer/README.md)
+asks *"is this code good?"*, `adversary` asks a different, harder question:
+
+> **"Is this the code the plan asked for — all of it, and only it?"**
+
+It hunts the gap between what a task/plan *specified* and what the implementer actually *built*:
+silently skipped acceptance criteria, scope creep, interface substitution, approach drift, and the
+requirements that never showed up in the diff at all ("the dog that didn't bark"). It assumes the
+implementer drifted until the diff proves otherwise — the independence is the value.
+
+## Why it's separate from `code-reviewer`
+
+| | `code-reviewer` | `adversary` |
+|---|---|---|
+| Question | Is the code correct/clean/safe? | Does the code match the plan? |
+| Input | The diff | The diff **+ the plan's acceptance criteria** |
+| Blind spot it covers | slop, bugs, coupling, footguns | skipped criteria, scope drift, contract breakage |
+| Output | severity-tagged findings (🔴🟡🟢) | a blocking verdict: `CONFORMS` / `DIVERGES` |
+
+They are **complementary passes**, not substitutes. `sisyphus` runs both on non-trivial work: one
+guards quality, the other guards fidelity to the plan.
+
+## Verdict (blocking)
+
+The agent ends every review with one sentinel:
+
+```
+ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW: CONFORMS
+Criteria: N/N met (all with tests).
+```
+
+```
+ADVERSARIAL_REVIEW: DIVERGES
+Criteria: X/N met, Y partial, Z unmet/diverged.
+Complaints:
+1. Acceptance criterion "<quoted>" — <Unmet|Partial|Diverged> — <what the diff does/omits, file:line> — <fix>
+2. ...
+```
+
+A `DIVERGES` verdict **blocks** completion. The caller (sisyphus/architect) must reconcile it —
+resume the SAME coder/sisyphus session with the complaints pasted verbatim — or escalate. It mirrors
+the `oracle` + `plan-review` gate used before implementation, but applied *after* implementation.
+
+Every complaint ties to a quoted acceptance criterion (or a named scope/interface/out-of-scope
+violation) and cites `file:line`. Vague complaints are not emitted.
+
+## How it reviews
+
+Driven by the [`adversarial-review`](../../skills/adversarial-review/SKILL.md) skill:
+
+1. Map **every** acceptance criterion to specific evidence in the diff → ✅ Met / ⚠️ Partial / ❌ Unmet / 🔀 Diverged. No test proving the behavior ⇒ at best ⚠️ Partial.
+2. Ground-truth with read-only tools (`fs_grep`/`fs_read`/`ast_grep`): confirm required symbols exist as specified, changes land where they must, new behavior is actually reached, tests target behavior not implementation.
+3. Hunt adversarially for the **absent**: skipped criteria, scope creep, interface/approach substitution, out-of-scope touches, downstream contract breakage.
+
+It is **read-only** — it produces a verdict, never a fix.
+
+## Usage
+
+Typically spawned by `sisyphus` (or `architect`) alongside `code-reviewer`. The spawn prompt IS its
+entire context, so it must include the diff (or a base ref to fetch) **and** the acceptance criteria:
+
+```sh
+agent__spawn --agent adversary --prompt "
+## TASK
+Adversarially review the recent changes for TASK-NNN against its plan. Return CONFORMS/DIVERGES.
+
+## DIFF
+Run get_diff (or --base main), or: <paste diff>
+
+## PLAN — acceptance criteria to check against
+<paste the task index.md body + the relevant PLAN-*.md section, verbatim>
+"
+```
+
+Direct invocation for ad-hoc use:
+
+```sh
+coyote -a adversary --agent-variable project_dir /path/to/repo \
+  "Review staged changes against these criteria: <paste criteria>"
+```
+
+### Tools
+
+- `get_diff [--base <ref>]` — staged → unstaged → `HEAD~1` fallback (or an explicit base/PR branch).
+- `get_changed_files [--base <ref>]` — quick changed-file map.
+- Plus read-only `fs_*` and `ast_grep` for ground-truth checks.
+
+## Related
+
+- [`adversarial-review`](../../skills/adversarial-review/SKILL.md) — the conformance methodology it runs on.
+- [`code-reviewer`](../code-reviewer/README.md) — the quality reviewer it runs alongside.
+- [`plan-review`](../../skills/plan-review/SKILL.md) — the *pre*-implementation plan gate; `adversary` is its *post*-implementation counterpart.