bmad-review-adversarial-general

Provide the diff, branch, or uncommitted changes as the content input and request an adversarial review. The reviewer assumes problems exist, analyzes the change skeptically, and returns at least ten findings as a Markdown list.

The review accepts any artifact: code diffs, branches, uncommitted changes, specifications, user stories, or general documents. You can also pass an optional also_consider input to highlight extra areas of concern during analysis.

Zero findings is treated as suspicious and triggers a halt condition. The reviewer re-analyzes the content or asks for guidance rather than reporting a clean pass, since the adversarial method assumes problems exist.

Avoid it when you need a quick approval, a summary, or constructive mentoring feedback rather than defect hunting. The cynical stance is designed to find flaws, so it is a poor fit for early drafts needing encouragement or high-level direction.

The minimum of ten findings forces deep analysis beyond obvious surface issues. It pushes the reviewer to examine missing requirements, edge cases, and unstated assumptions that a shallow pass would skip.