Skill detail

adversarial-qc

General quality-control skill that can help review legal deliverables but is not legal-specific.

MatchPossibleReviewed for lawyers
Sourcelegalquants/lq-skillsExternal source
Reported installs5Popularity signal only

Inspect before use

Automated review checks relevance, not safety or endorsement. Read the source instructions before using this skill.

Saved source preview

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' ev
Read the full source on GitHub (opens external page)
Context

Related work