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 ralplan, which this workflow feeds.
• The request is still too ambiguous to state the proposal being attacked; use deep-interview first.
• The user wants completed code reviewed for defects rather than a proposal attacked before it is built; use code-review.
• The user wants hostile runtime scenarios against a built change; use ultraqa.
• One perspective would do: a small local change with no contested decision does not earn three rounds.

Examples

Good example: