🔴 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:

# 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