adversarial-reviewlisted

# Adversarial Review Spawn five reviewer archetypes against a research artifact. Each is **critical and curious**: they attack the work to find what is true, not to gatekeep. Every review names a **crux** — the one thing that would change its verdict — so the author's response time is usable. The panel is deliberately diverse: five reviewers reading for five different failure modes catch more than one reviewer reading five times. Run them independently so their concerns don't collapse into a single voice, then synthesize. ## Inputs and setup The artifact is whatever the user wants reviewed: a paper (PDF, `.tex`, `.md`), an abstract, a proposal, an experiment plan, or a pasted argument. Read it fully before spawning anyone — a reviewer working from a summary reviews the summary. If the artifact is long or the venue matters (ICLR, NeurIPS, a specific journal, an internal bar), ask the user once for that context, then proceed. Don't interrogate; one round of clarification at most. ## The five archetypes Each archetype is defined in its own reference file. Spawn all five, one per reviewer, giving each **only its own file plus the artifact** — a reviewer who has read the other archetypes' instructions drifts toward covering their ground instead of its own. - `references/steelman-builder.md` — reconstructs the argument in its strongest form, then attacks *that*. - `references/assumption-auditor.md` — surfaces the load-bearing assumptions and probes where the result is robus