Menu

Individual skill

omh-adversarial-consensus

0upvotes

[omh] Technical proposal facing adversarial scrutiny: independent perspectives attack a proposal, then distill into a bundle a separate planner consumes. Use when the user says: adversarial-consensus, adversarial planning, adversarial plan review, red team this plan, red-team this plan, red team the proposal, multi-perspective review, multiple perspectives.

skills/omh-adversarial-consensus/SKILL.md

Read pinned source

Source commit 98284f305f6a9dce6e36a1580c9f333105f1a950

What was checked

Matches the observed repository HEAD
Yes
Scanner rules are current
Yes
Repository scan complete
No
Skill scan complete
No
Observed behavior
Network or broad shell
Last checked
Nov 9, 2026

These are observations at the recorded commit, not a guarantee of safety. Review the source before running it.

Install this skill

Choose an agent in your Stack or copy a command below. Commands fetch the pinned commit and copy only this skill directory. Existing destinations are refused. Copying a command does not install anything.

An install command is unavailable: current rules, complete repository and skill scans, an eligible behavior level and a permitted license are required.

Repository context

Repository stars (not skill ratings)
5,464
Repository last updated
Nov 11, 2026
License
MIT

Observed agent integration: No specific integration evidence. Standard SKILL.md installation does not imply verified compatibility.

Files and excerpt

File metadata and permitted, redacted excerpts come from the recorded scan. Source links are pinned to that commit.

Browse files
Read excerpt

# Adversarial Consensus

This is a Hermes-native `adversarial-consensus` workflow skill.

## Why This Exists

`adversarial-consensus` exists because agreement reached by perspectives that read each other is not review — it is convergence. Independent findings, an attack round nobody is allowed to defend against, and a distillation that may only subtract produce objections a single planning pass never surfaces, and the mandatory handoff keeps that bundle from being mistaken for the plan.

## Do Not Use When

- The user wants the plan itself, with options, acceptance criteria, and verification commands; use `ulw-plan`, which this workflow feeds.
- The request is still too ambiguous to state the proposal being attacked; use `ulw-interview` first.
- The user wants completed code reviewed for defects rather than a proposal attacked before it is built; use `omh-code-review`.
- The user wants hostile runtime scenarios against a built change; use `ulw-qa`.
Back to top