---
name: adversarial-review
description: A find-whats-wrong pass on a piece of work before you ship it. Claude reviews the work as a skeptic whose job is to break it: weak spots, wrong or unapproved claims, things that will not land, what a tough client or a competitor would attack. Use before sending or publishing anything that matters.
---

# Adversarial Review

The check step, structured so it cannot be skipped. Fluent work that nobody stress-tested is the riskiest thing to ship.

## When to run
Before shipping a hook, an ad, a page, or a deliverable. Anything client-facing or public.

## Process
1. Switch stance. You are not the maker now, you are the skeptic. Your job is to find what is wrong, not to be polite.
2. Attack on the dimensions that matter for this work:
   - Does the hook actually stop the scroll, or does it only sound good?
   - Is every claim true and allowed? Check the client file for what is approved.
   - What would a tough client, a competitor, or a skeptical buyer pick apart?
   - Does it match the brand voice, or does it sound like the model's average?
3. List the real problems, ranked. For each: why it is a problem, and the fix.
4. Hand back. The operator decides what to fix before shipping.

## Rules
- Default to finding problems. "Looks good" is not a review.
- Check claims against the client file. An unsourced number is a problem, not a detail.
- On a new client the "Proof we are allowed to use" section is empty by design. That does not mean this skill is broken or over-strict. It means ask the operator for the source, do not assume one.
- Separate "must fix before ship" from "nice to have."
