Skip to content

First Review Walkthrough

This walkthrough runs a real review and explains what each phase produces.

Setup

Make sure the plugin is installed. Open a Claude Code session in a project directory.

Step 1: Run the review

/adversarial-reviewing src/controllers/ --security --correctness --save

This runs two specialists against the controllers directory and saves the report.

Step 2: Understand the output

Phase 1 output (per specialist)

Each specialist produces findings in a structured format:

Finding ID: SEC-001
Specialist: Security Auditor
Severity: Important
Confidence: High
File: src/controllers/auth.go
Line: 42-58
Title: SQL injection in user lookup query
Evidence: The `findUser` function at line 42 concatenates user input
directly into the SQL query string without parameterization...
Recommended fix: Use parameterized queries via db.Query("SELECT ... WHERE id = ?", userID)
Source Trust: First-Party

Every finding must have:

  • A unique ID with specialist prefix
  • Severity (Critical/Important/Minor) backed by evidence
  • Confidence level (High/Medium/Low)
  • Exact file and line references
  • Evidence exceeding 100 characters (findings with less are auto-demoted)

Phase 2 output (challenge round)

Specialists challenge each other's findings:

Challenge: SEC-001
Challenger: CORR
Type: False Positive
Argument: The SQL query at line 42 uses an ORM method that already
parameterizes inputs. The raw SQL string is a template, not a
concatenation vulnerability.
Evidence: See orm.go:15 where Query() wraps all inputs in prepared statements.

The originating specialist must defend with file:line evidence or retract.

Phase 3 output (resolution)

Each finding gets an agreement classification:

  • Full Consensus: All specialists agree
  • Strong Agreement: 4/5 agree
  • Partial Agreement: 3/5 agree
  • Split Decision: 2-3 agree (triggers confidence disclaimer)
  • No Agreement: Dismissed with rationale

Phase 4 output (report)

The final report includes:

  • Executive summary with overall agreement level
  • Validated findings by severity (Critical > Important > Minor)
  • Escalated disagreements with all specialist positions
  • Dismissed findings with rationale
  • Remediation roadmap prioritized by severity and confidence

Step 3: Review the saved report

cat docs/reviews/$(date +%Y-%m-%d)-controllers-review.md

Next steps