adversarial-review

Adversarial Code Review

A skeptical, evidence-first review pass. Every claim must be grounded in real command output — no findings asserted from reading alone, no "looks fine" without running the gate.

Procedure

1. Explore the target package. Map its entry points, public surface, tests, and config. Identify what the package promises and where it could break.

2. Run the gates and record real output. Execute pnpm typecheck, pnpm lint, pnpm build, and pnpm test (scoped to the package). Capture actual stdout/stderr — exit codes, error lines, counts. Never paraphrase a gate you did not run.

3. Triage findings; refute optimistic claims. For each candidate finding, try to disprove it against source and gate output before accepting it. Separate real regressions from pre-existing/infra noise (see the repo's known-issue memories). Drop anything you cannot reproduce.

4. Save a prioritized findings table to a report file. Write the results to a report file (e.g. docs/reviews/<package>-review.md or $CLAUDE_JOB_DIR/tmp/<package>-review.md) — a P0/P1/P2 table with file:line, evidence, and proposed fix. Do not dump the full table inline; summarize and point to the file.

Notes

• Tabs, not spaces; Biome over Prettier (see Formatting & Conventions).
• Treat unverified claims as refuted by default.
• Keep the inline reply concise; the report file holds the detail.