Adversarial Coach

---
name: adversarial-coach
description: Adversarial implementation review based on Block's g3 dialectical autocoding research. Use when validating implementation completeness against requirements with fresh objectivity.
---

# /coach - Adversarial Implementation Review

## Usage

```
/coach [requirements-file]
```

- `/coach` - Infer requirements from context
- `/coach requirements.md` - Validate against specific file

## Coach-Player Loop

You orchestrate this dialectical loop between implementing agent (player) and reviewer (coach):

1. You (player) implement features
2. `/coach` invokes adversarial review with independent evaluation of compliance to requirements
3. Coach returns: `IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED` or specific fixes
4. Address feedback, loop until approved

## Review Process

### Step 1: Identify Requirements

Check (in order):
- Specified requirements file or issue/ticket mentioned
- `requirements.md`, `REQUIREMENTS.md`, `SPEC.md`, `TODO.md`
- Conversation context; ask user if nothing found

### Step 2: Adversarial Review

Review with **fresh objectivity** - discard prior knowledge, don't rationalize shortcuts.

| Check Category | Items |
|----------------|-------|
| Requirements | Each item: implemented or missing with specific gap |
| Compilation | Compiles? Tests pass? Runs? |
| Common Gaps | Auth on endpoints, token refresh endpoint, HTTPS, bcrypt for passwords, error handling, input validation |
| Functional | Test actual flows (not just compilation), verify edge cases work |
| Test Coverage | Auth error cases (401/403), token expiry, invalid inputs, rate limits |

### Step 3: Return Verdict

**If approved (>95% complete):**
```
IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED

- [Requirement 1]: Verified
- [Requirement 2]: Verified
- Compilation: Success
- Tests: All passing
```

**If fixes needed:**
```
REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE:
- [Requirement]: Implemented
- [Requirement]: Missing - [specific gap]

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED:
1. [Specific fix with file/line if known]
2. [Specific fix]
```

## Key Principles

**Rigorous but fair:**
- Catch real gaps (security, logic, data flow), not style preferences
- Functionality over aesthetics; always flag security issues (auth, crypto, validation)

**Concise:**
- Bullets, not essays; specific issues, not vague concerns
- No file contents or verbose analysis in output

**Fresh context is your superpower:**
- Review as if you've never seen this code; validate against requirements, not intentions

## Magic Signal

`IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED` = termination signal

Only use when: all requirements met, code compiles/runs, tests pass, no significant gaps.

If in doubt, don't approve.

## Minimal Example

```
User: /coach SPEC.md

Claude:
REQUIREMENTS COMPLIANCE:
- User registration endpoint (bcrypt hashing)
- Login with JWT tokens
- Logout endpoint - not implemented
- Token refresh - missing /auth/refresh endpoint

IMMEDIATE ACTIONS NEEDED:
1. Add POST /auth/logout endpoint
2. Add POST /auth/refresh for token renewal
3. Add tests for 401 on expired tokens

---

User: [fixes] /coach SPEC.md

Claude:
IMPLEMENTATION_APPROVED
- All auth endpoints verified (register, login, logout, refresh)
- 18 tests passing including auth error cases
```

## Research

- **Paper**: [Adversarial Cooperation in Code Synthesis](https://block.xyz/documents/adversarial-cooperation-in-code-synthesis.pdf)
- **Implementation**: [g3](https://github.com/dhanji/g3)
- **Key insight**: Discard implementing agent's self-report; perform independent evaluation against requirements.