Agent Skills › winstonkoh87/Athena-Public › Red-Team Review

Red-Team Review

GitHub

提供红队测试式的质量审查技能，通过多阶段对抗性视角、偏见检查和严重性加权，在发布前发现盲点与风险，适用于代码、文档等各类产物的最终质检。

examples/skills/quality/red-team-review/SKILL.md winstonkoh87/Athena-Public

Trigger Scenarios

发布重要产物前的最终质量检查需要多角度批判性审查以发现潜在风险

Install

npx skills add winstonkoh87/Athena-Public --skill Red-Team Review -g -y

More Options

Non-standard path

npx skills add https://github.com/winstonkoh87/Athena-Public/tree/main/examples/skills/quality/red-team-review -g -y

Use without installing

npx skills use winstonkoh87/Athena-Public@Red-Team Review

指定 Agent (Claude Code)

npx skills add winstonkoh87/Athena-Public --skill Red-Team Review -a claude-code -g -y

安装 repo 全部 skill

npx skills add winstonkoh87/Athena-Public --all -g -y

预览 repo 内 skill

npx skills add winstonkoh87/Athena-Public --list

SKILL.md

Frontmatter

{
    "name": "Red-Team Review",
    "model": "default",
    "created": 1772150400,
    "auto-invoke": true,
    "description": "Bias-aware adversarial review for any artifact before shipping. 5-phase QA protocol with severity-weighted findings.",
    "context_trigger": "review, red team, what did I miss, QA, bias check, critique, pre-mortem, is this ready, stress test, adversarial"
}

🔴 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 ___."