kill-argument

# Kill Argument Exercise: Adversarial Attack-Defense Review > 🔒 **Do not wrap this skill in `/loop`, `/schedule`, or `CronCreate`.** It is > verdict-bearing — it produces an adversarial accept/reject verdict (attack → > adjudication). Re-firing it on a wall-clock timer adds no new signal (the > attack changes only when the *paper* changes). Schedule the *external wait > that precedes it* — draft stable → then run this **once** before submission. > See > [`shared-references/external-cadence.md`](../shared-references/external-cadence.md). Stress-test the headline claims of a paper against the strongest possible rejection argument: **$ARGUMENTS** ## Why This Exists Standard score-based reviews (`/research-review`, `/auto-paper-improvement-loop`) tend to produce **balanced** weakness lists. Each weakness gets ~equal attention, ranked CRITICAL > MAJOR > MINOR. Empirically, this misses one specific failure mode: the **single most damaging argument** a reviewer would write in a rejection paragraph — the one sentence that, if a senior area chair reads it, kills the paper. A balanced reviewer might list "scope-overclaim risk" as MAJOR alongside 3-5 other MAJORs, never quite committing. An adversarial reviewer **must commit**: their entire job is to convince the area chair to reject in 200 words. This skill runs that adversarial pass deliberately, then forces a second fresh reviewer to defend point-by-point, classify each rejection as already-fixed / partially-fixed / still-u...