C.W.K.
Stream
Lesson 04 of 05 · published

Critique, Debate, and Adversarial Review

~28 min · critique, debate, review

Level 0Observer
0 XP0/40 lessons0/12 achievements
0/100 XP to next level100 XP to go0% complete

Different perspectives can reveal hidden failure

A reviewer agent can catch missing requirements. A debate pair can explore opposing interpretations. An adversarial reviewer can test security assumptions. These patterns help when one pass is too trusting.

But disagreement is not automatically truth. You still need a judge: criteria, scoring, tests, or human decision.

Make the critic specific

A critic that says “make it better” is noise. A critic that checks factual support, policy compliance, edge cases, and acceptance criteria is useful.

For security, ask the adversary to find exploit paths, then ask the defender to patch or reject them with evidence.

Code

Specific critic prompt·text
Review this output only for:
1. Missing acceptance criteria
2. Unsupported factual claims
3. Security or permission risks
4. Edge cases that change the conclusion
Return JSON with issues[]. Do not rewrite the answer.

External links

Exercise

Write a critic prompt for a code-changing agent. Include exactly four issue categories.
Hint
A critic prompt should not rewrite the whole output unless asked.

Progress

Progress is local-only — sign in to sync across devices.
Spotted a bug or have feedback on this page?Report an Issue

Comments 0

🔔 Reply notifications (sign in)
Sign inPlease sign in to comment.

No comments yet — be the first.