adversarial-review

Stress-testing a technical spec requires an adversarial review that uses dual-agent scrutiny to expose gaps, contradictions, and fragile architecture, generating prioritized evidence-backed findings before they become expensive to fix.

Dual-agent adversarial review is a mechanism where independent Claude and Codex passes critique a document, verify claims with citations, and synthesize prioritized findings into a single report and author brief.

Yes, you can perform a PRD critique by extracting goals, assumptions, and metrics, then running an independent fact-checking pass to surface disagreements, unrealistic claims, and missing sections.

Yes, evaluating AI feature specs triggers a proof burden mode that forces explicit answers on evaluation methods, fallbacks, human approvals, trust boundaries, and cost or latency constraints.

Architecture fitness evaluation and metrics validation apply to PRDs, architecture docs, statements of work, technical specs, and GTM or strategy docs when checking for fragile claims.

A document critique generates structured outputs by synthesizing findings into a full markdown report, a send-ready author brief, and a forward-compatible JSON artifact containing prioritized P0 to P3 issues.