Audit an implementation against its plan with a hostile peer agent, debate findings to consensus, and drive fix waves until the auditor runs dry. Use when a done-claim needs verification the implementer cannot game ("hostile review", "adversarial audit", "is this PR faithful", "find the escape hatches") — the loop that beats the laziness bias with its own game theory.
Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.
Are you the author of Hostility Review?
Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.
[](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/juspay-hostility-review-odu)
---
name: hostility-review
description: >-
Audit an implementation against its plan with a hostile peer agent, debate
findings to consensus, and drive fix waves until the auditor runs dry. Use
when a done-claim needs verification the implementer cannot game ("hostile
review", "adversarial audit", "is this PR faithful", "find the escape
hatches") — the loop that beats the laziness bias with its own game theory.
---
# Hostility review — done is the auditor's empty round
Reviews fail when author and auditor share an incentive: both want "done".
This loop splits them. Five moves; the mechanics live in `/kolu`.
1. **Fresh hostile eyes, zero stake.** The auditor is a different model that
never saw the brief and doesn't answer for the outcome. It audits the diff
against the PLAN — not the code against itself — seeded with the ledger of
previously named cheats. Evidence discipline: every finding cites the code
and quotes the plan sentence it violates. No vibes.
2. **Verify, then debate.** Trust no finding and no rebuttal: check each
against the code yourself, concede what's real, refute with evidence,
loop to consensus per finding. Judgment forks go to the human; evidence
disputes never do.
3. **Fix waves with predicates.** Each consensus becomes a wave brief whose
done-whens cannot be satisfied by their letter: greps that return nothing,
mutations actually performed and observed red, type-level pins. A test
seam never widens a public API. A claim without its executed check is
a finding.
4. **Loop until dry.** The implementer's "done" triggers a re-audit of the
pushed delta — including fresh residue the fixes introduced, and whether
a fix merely relocated the defect. The campaign ends only on the
auditor's clean round.
5. **Ratchet and scope.** Every named cheat joins the ledger (the next run
starts smarter) and graduates, where possible, into a permanent check —
yesterday's judgment is tomorrow's red build. Effort follows worth:
framework surface, then production semantics, then app tests — a guard
of a guard is rarely worth a wave.
