SkillHub ClubShip Full StackFull StackTesting

Red-Team Review

Bias-aware adversarial review for any artifact before shipping. 5-phase QA protocol with severity-weighted findings.

Packaged view

This page reorganizes the original catalog entry around fit, installability, and workflow context first. The original raw source lives below.

Stars

433

Hot score

Updated

March 20, 2026

Overall rating

C3.5

Composite score

3.5

Best-practice grade

C64.0

Install command

npx @skill-hub/cli install winstonkoh87-athena-public-red-team-review

Repository

winstonkoh87/Athena-Public

Skill path: examples/skills/quality/red-team-review

Bias-aware adversarial review for any artifact before shipping. 5-phase QA protocol with severity-weighted findings.

Open repository

Best for

Primary workflow: Ship Full Stack.

Technical facets: Full Stack, Testing.

Target audience: everyone.

License: Unknown.

Original source

Catalog source: SkillHub Club.

Repository owner: winstonkoh87.

This is still a mirrored public skill entry. Review the repository before installing into production workflows.

What it helps with

Install Red-Team Review into Claude Code, Codex CLI, Gemini CLI, or OpenCode workflows
Review https://github.com/winstonkoh87/Athena-Public before adding Red-Team Review to shared team environments
Use Red-Team Review for development workflows

Works across

Claude CodeCodex CLIGemini CLIOpenCode

Favorites: 0.

Sub-skills: 0.

Aggregator: No.

Original source / Raw SKILL.md

---
name: Red-Team Review
description: Bias-aware adversarial review for any artifact before shipping. 5-phase QA protocol with severity-weighted findings.
created: 2026-02-27
auto-invoke: true
model: default
---

# 🔴 Red-Team Review

> **Philosophy**: Find what you both missed. Assume shared blind spots.

## 1. When to Use

Before shipping any significant artifact — blog post, code, protocol, proposal, design doc. Best used with a **different model** than the one that created the artifact.

## 2. The Prompt

Copy this prompt and paste the artifact to be reviewed where indicated:

```markdown
# RED-TEAM REVIEW

You are reviewing an artifact. Your job: Find what WE BOTH missed.

## THE ARTIFACT
<paste artifact here>

---

## PHASE 0: DECLARE YOUR PRIORS
Before reviewing, state:
1. What thesis does this artifact assume?
2. What would falsify that thesis?
3. What perspective is NOT represented?

## PHASE 1: ADVERSARIAL LENSES
Review through EACH perspective:

| Lens | Question |
|------|----------|
| **The Skeptic** | What would someone who disagrees say? |
| **The User** | Who is harmed or disadvantaged? |
| **The Regulator** | What legal/ethical exposure exists? |
| **The Cynic** | What hidden incentive might be driving this? |
| **The Future** | How does this look in 5 years? |

## PHASE 2: BIAS CHECKLIST
Flag if present:
- [ ] Sycophancy — Did I just validate the creator's view?
- [ ] Cherry-Picking — Is counter-evidence missing?
- [ ] False Precision — Are numbers unjustified?
- [ ] Complexity Bias — Is a simpler explanation ignored?

## PHASE 3: SEVERITY-WEIGHTED FINDINGS
- 🔴 CRITICAL: Immediate failure if shipped
- 🟠 HIGH: Significantly reduces value
- 🟡 MEDIUM: Missed upside
- 🟢 LOW: Polish

## PHASE 4: SCORE (0-100)
Your Score: [ ] / 100

## PHASE 5: UNCERTAINTY
"I am least confident about ___ because ___."
```

## 3. Rules

- Quote directly. No vague complaints.
- Steelman opposing views BEFORE critiquing.
- Empty sections are fine — don't invent issues.
- Every HIGH must have a fix achievable in ≤10 minutes.

---

# skill #quality-assurance #adversarial #review