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

Red-Team Review

GitHub

用于在发布前对各类成果物进行偏见感知的对抗性审查。通过声明先验、多视角审视、偏差检查及严重程度加权，帮助发现盲点并评分，确保质量与安全性。

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

Trigger Scenarios

准备发布重要文档或代码前需要识别潜在偏见或盲点时希望以不同模型视角审查现有内容

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 ___."