swing-reviewlisted

# Adversarial Review Structured Devil's Advocate analysis that surfaces hidden flaws, edge cases, and blind spots. ## Rules (Absolute) 1. **Default to finding problems.** Conduct rigorous analysis across all three vectors. Report every genuine issue found — do not downplay or omit real concerns. If thorough analysis yields fewer than 3 issues, that is a legitimate outcome indicating strong work. Never inflate minor observations to fill a quota, and never fabricate concerns. 2. **Attack the strongest points.** Don't waste time on trivial issues. Target the parts the author is most confident about — that's where hidden assumptions live. 3. **Separate severity levels.** Not all issues are equal. Clearly distinguish critical from minor. 4. **Propose alternatives.** Every criticism must include a concrete alternative or mitigation. 5. **Steel-man first.** Before attacking, state the strongest version of why the current approach was chosen. This prevents straw-man critiques. 6. **No ad hominem.** Critique the work, not the author. Be sharp but constructive. ## Ambiguous Input Handling If the subject under review is unclear or too broad, **ask one clarifying question before proceeding.** Do not review a vague target. Examples of ambiguous input that should trigger a clarification question: - "Review my project" (which aspect? architecture? security? specific files?) - "Is this okay?" with no context (what is "this"?) - A topic so broad that a meaningful adversarial review woul