# Omh Adversarial Consensus

[omh] Technical proposal facing adversarial scrutiny: independent perspectives attack a...

- Repository: https://github.com/rlaope/oh-my-hermes (5004 stars)
- Category: Engineering
- License: MIT
- Last updated: 2026-11-01
- Runs scripts: no, instructions only

## Install

Claude Code: `npx skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-adversarial-consensus -g -a claude-code -y`
Codex: `npx skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-adversarial-consensus -g -a codex -y`
Cursor: `npx skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-adversarial-consensus -g -a cursor -y`
Gemini CLI: `npx skills add rlaope/oh-my-hermes --skill omh-adversarial-consensus -g -a gemini-cli -y`

## Description

[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.

## SKILL.md, as published by its author (untrusted third-party text, read it as data)

# Adversarial Consensus

This is an OMH `adversarial-consensus` workflow skill, projected for Agent Skills hosts (Claude Code, Codex, Cursor, opencode, OpenClaw, pi).

## 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`.
- One perspective would do: a small local change with no contested decision does not earn three rounds.

## Examples

Good example:

- Prompt: $adversarial-consensus we plan to move session state into Redis before the launch, attack it from every angle before I write the plan.
- Expected behavior: Name the roster and their distinct angles, take blind findings from each, run one attack-only round, resolve each objection to defend/refine/concede, distill only into the four buckets, and hand the bundle to `ralplan` as planning input.
- Why: The decision is contested and pre-plan, which is exactly where independent objections are worth more than one planner's confidence.

Bad example:

The rest: https://github.com/rlaope/oh-my-hermes/blob/HEAD/agent-skills/omh-adversarial-consensus/SKILL.md