feisty

Challenges design-review findings by reading source code and refuting unverified violations.

1|Updated May 29, 2026
One-click install
npx skills add https://github.com/borderux/recursica-knowledge --skill feisty-borderux
Or copy as Structured Prompt for Agent▼
Please help me install this Agent Skill.
Skill: feisty
Source: https://github.com/borderux/recursica-knowledge/tree/main/agents/barb/subagents/feisty
Command: npx skills add https://github.com/borderux/recursica-knowledge --skill feisty-borderux

SYSTEM DOCUMENTATION & REQUIREMENTS

What problem does it solve? Design-review checkers produce confident findings that are often false, wasting developer time on code that is already correct and eroding trust in review reports. This Skill adversarially tests each finding against the actual source before it is reported. ## Core Features & Use Cases - Source-First Verification: Reads the cited file and line directly rather than trusting the finding's description of the code. - Structured Refutation Checks: Works through line accuracy, rule scope and exceptions, satisfaction elsewhere (wrappers, defaults, tokens), and rule precedence. - Refute-by-Default Verdicts: Returns refuted: true whenever a violation cannot be affirmatively confirmed, with confidence, reason, and optional correction fields. - Use Case: A design reviewer flags a table cell for missing a maximum width. Feisty opens the file, finds the width already applied and only alignment missing, and returns a corrected finding instead of a false one. ## Quick Start Dispatch this subagent with a single design-review finding including the rule, the claimed violation, and the file and line to verify.

Frequently Asked Questions about feisty

High-intent search queries and answers about installing and using this skill.

FAQPage Schema
How do I verify design-review findings before reporting them?▼

Dispatch each finding to an adversarial checker that reads the cited source file directly rather than trusting the finding's description. It confirms the line content, rule scope, and whether the rule is already satisfied elsewhere before the finding is reported.

How to reduce false positives in automated design reviews?▼

Use a refute-by-default challenger that marks findings as refuted unless the violation can be affirmatively confirmed from source. This trades a few missed true findings for eliminating false ones that waste developer time and damage report credibility.

What output does the feisty verification agent return?▼

It returns a refuted boolean, a confidence level of high or low, a one-to-two sentence reason naming what was read, and an optional correction when the finding was directionally right but wrong in specifics like line number or cause.

Can the feisty agent fix or edit the code it reviews?▼

No, it has only Read, Grep, and Glob tools with no write access. It also must not widen findings; newly noticed violations are noted in one line and left for separate dispatch.

When should a design-review finding be refuted?▼

Refute when the cited line does not match the claim, the rule's scope or exceptions exclude the case, the rule is satisfied by a wrapper, default, or token, or a more specific rule takes precedence. Uncertainty also defaults to refuted.