independent-reviewlisted

# independent-review (adversarial second opinion) A reviewer who shares your framing shares your blind spots. The value of a second opinion is **independence** — it reasons from the work itself, not from your justification of it. Reach for this when you need to catch plausible-but-wrong output, or to surface that the premise itself is wrong, not just the details. ## Pick the right independence level | Need | Use | Why | |------|-----|-----| | **Mechanical checks** — untested claims, boundary breaks, spec violations, contradictions | **Claude Code built-in subagent** (`@`-mention it, or name it in your prompt) | Fresh context window, zero setup. The parent crafts the subagent's task prompt, so it inherits your framing — but that is fine here, because mechanical flaws don't depend on independence. | | **Questioning the premise** — "is this approach even right?", subtle design-sense calls | **A harness-spawned agent** (`harness-cli session new -d`) | Boots a fresh claude on its own worktree with no shared context — true independence. A subagent cannot give this: its prompt is written by the very agent whose work is under review, so it inherits that agent's blind spots and self-justification. | The built-in subagent is **claude-only**. The harness-spawned path works for any agent and is the one to use when independence is load-bearing. ## The adversarial brief Whichever you pick, tell the critic to **attack**, in two layers: 1. **Refute the details** — untested claims, bou