What problem does it solve? High-stakes decisions and contested technical claims suffer when a single model answers alone, since one model can hallucinate, share its own blind spots, or anchor on weak assumptions. This Skill orchestrates 2-3 independent Codex panelists that answer blindly, attack each other's claims, and defend or concede under critique, so conclusions rest on verified evidence rather than confident prose. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Isolated three-round debate: Round 1 blind answers, Round 2 cross-critique with mandatory falsification attempts, and Round 3 final positions with explicit concede/defend responses to every critique. - Sandboxed panelist execution: Each panelist runs in a bubblewrap mount/PID namespace with a read-only workspace, per-panelist private directories, denied access to auth files and /proc, and filtered environment variables. - Schema-validated outputs with fail-fast degradation: JSON schemas enforce claims with confidence and falsification conditions; invalid outputs trigger one retry, and runs abort when fewer than two valid panelists remain. - Use Case: Before approving an irreversible database migration, run the panel so a first-principles analyst, an outside-view estimator, and a falsifier independently assess the plan, attack each other's reasoning, and surface the strongest surviving evidence. ## Quick Start Ask the agent to use the adversarial-panel skill to adversarially verify your important decision with multiple independent Codex models.
