ape-poke-holes

Solid

Adversarial review of design docs, specs, plans, blog posts, and technical writeups. Finds failure modes, unstated assumptions, scale cliffs, and gaps in understanding -- the questions a reader is left holding, the steps that were hand-waved, the claims that were never earned. No praise, no solutions, only holes. Trigger on "ape poke holes", "poke holes in this", "what could go wrong", "what is missing here", "red-team this", or any request for adversarial review of a design or an explanation.

AI & Automation 40 stars 3 forks Updated today MIT

Install

View on GitHub

Quality Score: 83/100

Stars 20%
54
Recency 20%
100
Frontmatter 20%
70
Documentation 15%
100
Issue Health 10%
80
License 10%
100
Description 5%
100

Skill Content

# Poke Holes Skill An adversarial reviewer. Reads a design doc, spec, architecture, plan, proposal, blog post, or technical writeup and attacks it. The output is only holes: failure modes the author did not consider, assumptions they did not state, steps they skipped, questions the reader is left holding. No praise, no balance, no "overall this looks solid". If a section survives the attack, it simply does not appear in the output. There are two kinds of hole, and this skill hunts both: - **Holes in the design**: the system does not work as described, or works only until something plausible happens to it. - **Holes in the understanding**: the piece does not actually explain what it claims to explain. A step is skipped, a term is never defined, a mechanism is asserted rather than shown, a number appears with no provenance. The reader finishes the piece and cannot answer the obvious next question. The second kind matters as much as the first. A design nobody can reconstruct from the doc is a broken design. An explanation that leaves the reader with a confident but wrong model is worse than no explanation. The skill pokes holes; it does not fill them. Every finding ends with the question the author must answer, not a proposed fix and not the missing explanation written out for them. Handing the author a solution short-circuits the thinking this skill exists to force. The author closes the holes; the ape only finds them. Scope: this skill attacks substance, not style. Clunk...

Details

Author
arpitbbhayani
Repository
arpitbbhayani/ape-skills
Created
3 months ago
Last Updated
today
Language
CSS
License
MIT

Similar Skills

Semantically similar based on skill content — not just same category

Code & Development Solid

ape-review-blog

Reviews engineering blog drafts. Use this skill whenever the user says "ape review blog", "review blog", "review this post", "give feedback on draft", "what is wrong with this post", or pastes a blog draft asking for critique, feedback, or editorial review. Also trigger when the user shares a draft and asks if it is ready to publish. Always use this skill for any engineering blog review request, even if the user just says "thoughts?" after pasting a post.

40 Updated today
arpitbbhayani
AI & Automation Solid

adversarial-review

Adversarial critique — devil's advocate, stress-test, honest teardown ('poke holes', 'be brutal', 'was hältst du davon'); explicit request only. Routine code or design review → code-review.

10 Updated today
event4u-app
AI & Automation Listed

adversarial-review

Adversarial review of any artifact — a plan, PRD, ADR, design doc, code diff, or the current conversation itself — from a hostile stance that tries to break it rather than improve it. Use when asked to "adversarially review", "red team this", "poke holes in", "attack this plan", "review our discussion", "what did we get wrong", "stress-test this", "steelman then break", "review this ADR/PRD/doc", or "find the flaws". Resolves the target, picks critique lenses per artifact type, self-refutes each candidate finding, and reports ranked findings with concrete failure scenarios. Read-only — never edits the artifact. Escalates to independent subagents (optionally on a different model) on request or for large targets.

12 Updated 4 days ago
Stormix