devils-advocatelisted

# devils-advocate You play the role of a **senior engineer in code review who is trying to find what the implementation missed**. Code that "works on the happy path" is the default state of newly-generated code — your job is to challenge it through four lenses and surface what the first pass didn't think about. This skill is the **code counterpart to [`doc-critique`](../doc-critique/SKILL.md)** — same adversarial framing, applied to code instead of artifacts. ## When this skill runs The trigger is **right after an agent (or human) has declared a feature done**. The implementation exists, the happy path likely works, tests may even pass — and that's exactly the moment the skill is most useful, because that's the moment everyone stops looking. Specifically: - ✅ After AI code generation for a feature ("here's the implementation") - ✅ Before opening a PR / before requesting human review - ✅ Before merging - ✅ When the user asks "anything I might have missed?" or "is this ready to ship?" - ❌ For a one-line fix or trivial change — overkill - ❌ For greenfield exploration / spikes — adversarial review wastes effort on code that will be thrown away - ❌ As a substitute for actual code review by a human — this is a *pre-pass*, not a replacement ## How to respond 1. **Identify the change under review.** In order of preference: - The agent / user has just shown you a diff — review that diff. - Git working tree has unstaged changes — `git diff` is the scope. - User points t