Skill detail
adversarial-qc
General quality-control skill that can help review legal deliverables but is not legal-specific.
Inspect before use
Automated review checks relevance, not safety or endorsement. Read the source instructions before using this skill.
SKILL.md
The saved excerpt is a snapshot from review. The external source remains the complete and most current version.
--- name: adversarial-qc description: "Adversarial quality control for AI deliverables. Run structured parallel verification using one or two models before delivering reports, plans, analyses, scripts, or any substantive work. Use when: (1) reviewing a deliverable before sending to a human, (2) user asks to 'QC this', 'review this', 'check this', 'verify this', (3) user wants a quality gate on AI output, (4) validating factual claims, numbers, logic, or completeness. Configurable: single-model (two agents, same model) or cross-model (two different providers). Outputs a QC certificate with pass/fail/review items and evidence." author: Alexios van der Slikke-Kirillov version: 1.0.0 last_reviewed: 2026-05 last_reviewed_by: LegalQuants (QA remediation) tags: [quality-control, multi-agent, verification, adversarial, certificate] --- # Adversarial QC Structured quality control for AI deliverables. Two agents independently verify a deliverable against a checklist, then results are compared. Agreements = high confidence. Disagreements = flagged for human review. ## Quick Start 1. Read the deliverable to be reviewed 2. Read `references/checklist.md` for the verification checklist 3. Read `references/config.md` for model configuration 4. Run the QC process (see Workflow below) 5. Generate the QC certificate ## Configuration The user controls these settings. Ask if not specified: - **Mode**: `single` (one model, two agent personas) or `cross` (two different models) - **Models**: Which model(s) to use. Defaults: primary = current session model, secondary = user's choice - **Checklist**: `standard` (general-purpose) or a custom checklist path - **Output**: `certificate` (PDF), `inline` (text summary), or `both` - **Depth**: `quick` (5-item core checklist, ~30s), `standard` (full checklist, ~2min), `deep` (full checklist + source re-verification, ~5min) ## Workflow ### Step 1: Ingest Read the deliverable. Identify its type (report, script, plan, analysis, email, legal document, other). This determines which checklist items are relevant. ### Step 2: Run Agent A (Verifier) Spawn a sub-agent with these instructions: ``` You are QC Agent A — a verification specialist. Your job is to check a deliverable against a structured checklist. You must be thorough, skeptical, and evidence-based. RULES: - Every finding must include EVIDENCE (command output, source quote, or specific reasoning) - "I think" is not evidence — verify or mark UNVERIFIED - Do not assume the deliverable is correct — assume it contains errors until proven otherwise - Be specific: "Line 14 claims X but source says Y" not "some numbers seem off" DELIVERABLE: [Insert deliverable text] CHECKLIST: [Insert from references/checklist.md — only items relevant to deliverable type] For each checklist item, output: - PASS: [item] — [evidence it's correct] - FAIL: [item] — [what's wrong + evidence] - REVIEW: [item] — [unable to verify, reason, suggested human check] End with a summary: X pass, Y fail, Z review. ``` ### Step 3: Run Agent B (Challenger) Spawn a second sub-agent (different model if cross-mode). Same instructions but with this addition: ``` You are QC Agent B — an independent challenger. You are running the same checklist as Agent A but you have NOT seen Agent A's results. Your job is to find what Agent A might miss. Pay special attention to: - Claims that SOUND correct but aren't verified - Numbers that are plausible but unchecked - Logic that flows well but has gaps - Things that would embarrass the author if a domain expert read them ``` If single-model mode: use different system prompts to create genuine perspective difference. Agent A is methodical and checklist-driven. Agent B is adversarial and tries to break things. ### Step 4: Compare Results For each checklist item: - **Both PASS** → High confidence. Mark GREEN. - **Both FAIL** (same issue) → Confirmed error. Mark RED. - **One PASS, one FAIL** → Disagreement. Mark YELLOW. Include both agents' evRead the full source on GitHub (opens external page)